Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE

The House being met, the Clerk Assistant at the Table informed the House of the absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting:—

Whereupon Sir ERIC FLETCHER, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PETITION

Road Programme

Mr. Allason: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to ask leave to present a Petition to this honourable House on behalf of the electors of Hemel Hempstead and others. The Petitioners pray that Her Majesty's Government will reinstate in the road programme bypasses to the towns of Hemel Hempstead, Berkhampsted, Tring and King's Langley, in view of the danger to human life. The Petition is signed by over 3,800 persons.

The Petition concludes:

Your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [Lords]

[Queen's Consent on behalf of the Duchy of Lancaster, signified]

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

EXETER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tomorrow.

BARRY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

BLACKFRIARS BRIDGEHEAD IMPROVEMENTS BILL [Lords]

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

TEES VALLEY AND CLEVELAND WATER BILL (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNOLOGY

Computer Industry

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Technology how much Government backing, and what guaranteed orders he proposes to give to British computer manufacturers to support their research and development costs and to assist them obtain export orders; and if he will make a statement.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Edmund Dell): Substantial support is being given to the British computer industry through research and development contracts and through a succession of Government orders.

Sir C. Osborne: May I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to convey to the Minister of Technology my congratulations on his appointment and my good wishes in the important job which he has undertaken? May I ask the hon. Gentleman two Questions? First, will the new Minister continue the support which was given by the previous Minister in buying British machines rather than American machines for the universities, the Post Office, and the nationalised industries? Secondly, will he extend the export guarantees to cover the exports of these expensive machines which are now taking place?

Mr. Dell: My right hon. Friend will certainly continue the support for the British computer industry which has been given in the past. We have under consideration the question of extending the export guarantees to cover these machines, but I am not yet ready to say anything on the matter.

Mr. Dalyell: Can we count on further help for computer-aided designs?

Mr. Dell: This matter is under study in the National Engineering Laboratory at East Kilbride. We certainly have the matter under attention.

Machine Tools(Export Orders)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Technology what was the percentage change in net new export orders of machine tools between January and March, 1966, and the corresponding period in 1965.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Peter Shore): Twenty-one per cent. lower.

Mr. Biffen: Are not these disturbing figures? Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that, for the six months ending in March, the figures are over 20 per cent. lower as well? Has he indicated his concern to the President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Shore: There has been during the last three months a decline compared with the previous quarter. It is true that the trend in the last six months has been downwards but I am glad to say that, in the last month, there has been a significant upward movement. We are, of course, in touch with the E.D.C. for the machine tool industry about this and other matters affecting the industry.

Fast Breeder Reactor, Dounreay

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Technology what discussions the Atomic Energy Authority has had with the Central Electricity Generating Board to determine the price to be paid by the Board for electricity generated by the 250 megawatt fast breeder reactor at Dounreay.

Mr. Dell: The Authority has had discussion with the North of Scotland Hydroelectric Board. Surplus electricity produced by the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay will be purchased by the Board at a price which will enable it to be sold to consumers at normal tariff prices.

Shipbuilding and Ship-Repairing Industries

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Technology (1) what

reorganisation of his Department he is making to deal with the transfer to it of responsibility for the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries;

(2) what steps he is taking to recruit to his Department staff with special knowledge of shipbuilding and ship-repairing.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): My Department is working out, in consultation with the Board of Trade, the detailed arrangements for the transfer of responsibility for the shipbuilding industry, but it is too soon to say what reorganisation or additional staff will be necessary.

Mr. Digby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the importance of continuity in this vital industry, particularly just after the recommendations of the Geddes Report? Is he further aware that frequent changes of responsibility from one Ministry to another are undesirable and that he will have to do a lot to counterbalance it?

Mr. Benn: I am sure that the Government are well aware of this. Appropriate staff will be moving with their related departments. One of the reasons the process is being taken at this pace is to avoid interruption of the work on Plowden and Geddes.

Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend or either of his Parliamentary Secretaries be making contact with the shipbuilding interests?

Mr. Benn: Of course. In this case, the Board of Trade is in touch with the shipbuilding interests and the staff coming to my Department is already in contact with them.

Mr. David Price: May I take this opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new appointment? Will the Government announce their decision on the Geddes Report before responsibility for shipbuilding is moved from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Technology, or will it fall to the right hon. Gentleman to present the Government's reactions to the Geddes proposals?

Mr. Benn: The first work on the Geddes Report is being done by the Board of Trade. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we shall be involved in any decisions.

Dame Irene Ward: Will the Ministry of Technology and the Board of Trade be in direct consultation at all stages with the shipbuilding community, since it had no knowledge or consultation before the transfer of these departments was arranged, which is very unsatisfactory from the point of view of the industry?

Mr. Benn: While I appreciate that point, this is a matter of the machinery of Government and of organisation. It was proper for the Government to take this decision, but there will be no lack of contact.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Technology what administrative arrangements he has made at the present time for dealing with research, development and construction in the shipbuilding industry; what additional arrangements he proposes in the near future; and what discussions he has had with the industry with a view to determining the nature of this machinery.

Mr. Benn: The Board of Trade takes the lead in discussions with the industry on ways in which the Government might help. The Ministry of Technology is now to be associated with those discussions. Arrangements already exist in my Department for reviewing with the industry its research needs.

Mr. Osborn: Has the right hon. Gentleman actually had meetings already with the shipbuilding industry in connection with construction as distinct from research?

Mr. Benn: I have not myself personally, but if the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question about this, I will report what has been done.

Departmental Changes

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Technology if he will now publish a revised organisation chart for his Department incorporating all the changes made since 9th March, 1966; what changes and additions have been made since this date; what further changes and additions are contemplated in the immediate future; and how many civil servants and personnel are involved.

Mr. Benn: The basic organisation remains the same as stated on 10th May, 1966. The detailed organizational

changes will follow the implementation of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement on 16th June, 1966.

Mr. Osborn: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment and wish him well. Can he state whether these proposed changes, which were undoubtedly announced for internal political reasons and which are now obviously not necessary, are themselves technically and administratively justified?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of the change and the reason for it, which was to bring together different aspects of the engineering industry, of which he has great knowledge. We shall be looking at this over the next few months before the change takes place and I will bear in mind the points that he or other hon. Gentlemen like to put.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman give special attention in this change to the position of the Royal Radar Establishment at Malvern and make certain that the Prime Minister's earlier undertaking not to fragment or erode or vitiate that important scientific centre will be the continuing policy of his Department?

Mr. Benn: Discussions are going on, and if the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a specific Question about this subject, I would be glad to try and answer. Discussions are going on with the Ministry of Defence about the extent to which it will need to take over the responsibilities of the Ministry of Aviation.

Mr. David Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, throughout, the House will be concerned to ensure that, with the added responsibility of his Department for the whole of engineering, arrangements are made for the necessary support for the sale overseas of British engineering products? We should like to hear more about the arrangements, particularly for the transfers from the Board of Trade, and that the support that these industries have enjoyed from the Board of Trade will not be jeopardised by going to two Departments rather than one.

Mr. Benn: I am aware of the importance of that point and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making it.

Scientists and Engineers

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Technology (1) what staff is available to the Committee on Manpower Resources for Science and Technology for continuous oversight of the supply and employment of qualified scientists and engineers both in general and with particular reference to employment by Government agencies; and
(2) what permanent machinery exists for formulating and implementing Government policy for optimum employment and redeployment of scientific manpower within the Ministries and other public bodies.

Mr. Dell: The Department of Education and Science and the Ministry of Technology provide experienced staff to support the work of the Committee on Manpower Resources for Science and Technology. Making the best use of manpower resources in Government agencies is primarily a matter for the Departments concerned and the Treasury.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the staff provided by the Department of Education and Science be occupied full time on the work of the Committee on Manpower Resources for Science and Technology? How are the requirements of the Defence Departments, which use a considerable number of qualified scientists and engineers, co-ordinated in the whole programme?

Mr. Dell: It is the objective of the Government to ensure that scientific personnel previously used on defence are used, so far as possible, on civil work in future, and this matter remains under continuous review. Eleven senior staff are directly concerned with the work of the Committee.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, three years ago, the Prime Minister made a speech at Scarborough about the brain drain? What are the Government doing to prevent these highly qualified people from going to the United States and elsewhere? The brain drain is worse than ever before.

Mr. Dell: The Government are giving the greatest possible encouragement to advanced technology but it is necessary that all aspects of advanced technology be judged from the point of view of economic viability.

Computers (Training Syllabuses)

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the Minister of Technology what is the machinery of co-operation between his Department and the Department of Education and Science on the drawing up of syllabuses for training in the use of computers.

Mr. Dell: The Ministry of Technology is represented on the Inter-departmental Working Group on Computer Education under the chairmanship of the Department of Education and Science.

Plan for Engineering

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Technology what discussions he has had with leaders of the engineering industry on implementing those parts of the Plan for Engineering for which his Department is responsible.

Mr. Benn: Continuing discussion with industry on the implementation of the National Plan is one of the principal activities of my Department. The range of industries is too large and the discussions are too numerous for me to itemise them.

Mr. Hamling: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. Is he aware that the trade unions in the engineering industry are most anxious to give every assistance they can towards implementing the National Plan and making the engineering industry much more efficient than it has ever been?

Mr. Benn: I am, of course, aware of that. The Plan for Engineering, published in 1951 and again in 1953 by the Confederation, deals with many of the issues now the subject of consultation between my Department and the unions concerned.

Mr. David Price: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will from time to time publish a revision of the National Plan? I think he will agree that a five-year plan ought to be revised after the second or third year when it is clear that it has not been fulfilled in its earlier years, so that the objectives are at least realistic?

Mr. Benn: This would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs but, in so far


as it affects industries which my Department is responsible for sponsoring, we will keep the position under review.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay special attention to apprenticeship schemes? It looks as though the apprenticeship period should be reduced from five years to three in many cases.

Mr. Benn: We are in consultation about this matter with the Ministry of Labour.

Machine Tool Industry

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will now make a statement in the steps he has taken to reorganise the machine tool industry in Great Britain.

Mr. Shore: With the encouragement and support of the Ministry of Technology, there has been considerable progress in the last two years in the concentration of the machine tool industry into stronger units. The Industrial Reorganisation Corporation will facilitate such further developments as prove necessary.

Mr. Hamling: Can my hon. Friend say what plans his Ministry has for Government-sponsored machine tool factories?

Mr. Shore: We have no plans at present, but I assure my hon. Friend that there are no doctrinaire, anti-public enterprise thoughts in this Ministry at this time.

Hurricanes

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Technology, in view of the heavy cost to the British economy during the last three years through calls on British insurance companies and Lloyds and damage to British-owned property because of destruction by hurricane, what experiments he is planning in his Department or sponsoring in research elsewhere towards lessening such damage.

Mr. Shore: The effect of wind pressures on buildings is studied at the National Physical Labarotory and at the Building Research Station. The Overseas Division of Building Research

Station is always ready to give advice on the design of buildings for hurricane areas.

Mr. Tilney: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is much more than a matter of buildings and that the claims resulting from Hurricane "Betsy" were the biggest of all time for the British insurance industry, and that thousands of lives are lost every year because of hurricanes? If there can be international liaison over locust control, surely there can be international collaboration in lessening hurricane damage.

Mr. Shore: I should like to look at that, but I can tell the hon. Member that the Building Research Station has prepared model building regulations for small buildings, which are shortly to be published, and that it is the small buildings, I am informed, which are the greatest problem rather than the large structures, which are generally quite adequate.

Hovertrains

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Technology what research and development his Department is now sponsoring on the Hovertrain; what will be the cost of this during the current year; what percentage this will be of all funds from private and governmental sources spent on this development; and whether he is satisfied that the total funds available are adequate.

Mr. Shore: None, Sir. But Hovercraft Development Ltd., a subsidiary of the N.R.D.C., has been doing some experimental work. It has constructed a small dynamic model and has completed plans for experiments with a man-carrying vehicle.

Mr. Crouch: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of this great new development which is in danger of slowing down because of the lack of energetic Government support? Does he consider that the amount of money now available, Government or private money, is sufficient to see that progress is made?

Mr. Shore: This application of the air cushion principle should be seen against the general background of the development of the Hovercraft industry. I agree that this application is very much at the beginning of its development, but we have


now reached the stage where further major progress will depend upon detailed studies between H.D.L. and British Railways and studies which, I hope, will embrace alternative fast, land transport systems.

Telecommunications

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Technology what administrative arrangements he has made for dealing with research, development and production in the telecommunications field; and what proposals he has for improving telecommunications in this country.

Mr. Benn: Standing arrangements have been established between my Department and the Post Office and discussions are in progress with individual firms in the industry. In addition the Department's Technical Advisory Committee for Electronics can also consider basic aspects of research and development in this field.
As to the second part of the Question, primary responsibility for the telecommunications services rests with the Postmaster-General and I am in close touch with him regarding the future of telecommunications in this country.

Mr. Hastings: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there can be no long-term future for this country in the international telecommunications market unless we engage in an adequate national space programme? In this context, has he seen the Follett Report in 1964 which makes it abundantly clear that in this country we are capable of developing a Commonwealth satellite communications system? What is his view?

Mr. Benn: That is rather a different question although very important. One of the first questions which I raised with the industry in October, 1964, was the possible development of an export market in earth satellite tracking stations. I also attended both Commonwealth telecommunications conferences. But I think that these matters are now up to the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for his Ministry to give advice to the Post Office on a simpler problem—how to ensure that ordinary letters are delivered on time?

Mr. David Price: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree, particularly having had the experience of being Postmaster-General, that of all the responsibilities which his Department has this is probably the most important? Would he not agree that those countries which at any moment of history have been at the fore of communications technology have also as a result been those countries which economically and politically have been most successful?

Mr. Benn: I entirely share that view and that is why I am glad that last year, for the first time, in terms of external and internal telecommunications, we narrowed the gap with other countries and that this is the fastest growing science-based industry in the country.

Aircraft Industry

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Technology what administrative arrangements he has made for dealing with research, development and construction in the civil aircraft industry; what additional arrangements he proposes in the near future; and what discusssions he has had with the industry and the Society of British Aircraft Constructors with a view to determining the nature of this machinery.

Mr. Benn: Responsibility for the aircraft industry continues to be with the Minister of Aviation until the transfer to my Department announced by the Prime Minister on 16th June takes place.

Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. Gentleman do a little better than that? Can he say when talks will be started with the S.B.A.C., which has no inkling as yet as to what form the new arrangements will take? Does he not think that it is time that this industry, which this year alone will be responsible for about £200 million worth of exports, was given some adequate means of communication with the Government? Will he do his best to see that that is brought forward?

Mr. Benn: As I said, the Ministry of Aviation is responsible for contacts with the industry until transfer takes place. When transfer takes place, those staff who have been in contact with the industry and other relevant staff will move


to my Department. I do not think that the difficulties of the transfer will be as great as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that military and civil aircraft research and development and so on have been interdependent ever since we embarked on these projects? Does my right hon. Friend think that it will be an advance if we now separate them and put them under separate Ministers?

Mr. Benn: Those considerations were in the Prime Minister's mind before the decision was announced on 16th June it is in order to eliminate any doubts about the details of the transfer that discussions are now going on with the Ministry of Defence about the exact definition of Ministry of Aviation responsibilities. I am sure that my hon. Friend will see the great value of bringing aviation engineering into a Department which has wide responsibilities for the allocation of R. and D. in the country as a whole.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind as the new Minister that he is now taking on far too many new activities and that communication is the most essential feature of the new post? Will he again consider the amount of activity which he is taking under his own wing?

Mr. Benn: The allocation of responsibilities within the Government is a matter for the Prime Minister to decide, but it is a little early for the hon. Gentleman to assume that an industry is necessarily wrongly placed in the context and under the sponsorship of one Ministry which, for the first time, brings responsibilities for the engineering industry together with the Government research effort.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to his colleague, the Minister of Aviation, before he takes over that the House should be informed of the date some time beforehand? Is he aware that I recently put a Question down for answer by the Minister of Aviation tomorrow and received only 48 hours' notice of its transfer to the Board of Trade, well down the list? Is not this a very discourteous way to treat hon. Members?

Mr. Benn: The allocation of Questions as between Ministers is not a matter for

me, but I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said about the exact date on which transfer will take place.

Mr. David Price: Although the responsibilities of the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry have obviously not been of his own choosing and there is always a reasonable argument between vertical and horizontal structure, the Prime Minister having decided on the one, will the right hon. Gentleman take care in dealing with these industries to assist them with their selling problems where he can?

Mr. Benn: This is a responsibility which rests particularly with the Board of Trade, but I do not think that any Ministry responsible as we are for the advancement of technology in Britain could possibly fail to take due account of the export potentialities of developments, and we shall try to encourage them as far as possible.

Annual Report

Mr. David Price: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will prepare and publish an annual report upon the current work of his Department and his programme of work for the future.

Mr. Benn: I have no plans to do this, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for this suggestion, which I shall consider carefully.

Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in considering this question, bear in mind that the responsibilities of his Department are very complex and inevitably technical and that it would be for the benefit not only of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen but of the public at large if he would follow the practice of the Department of Education and Science and produce an annual report?

Mr. Benn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is not the general practice for Government Departments, but I am very conscious of the considerations which he has put before me. The research stations do publish annual reports, but I shall consider this matter very carefully.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are also hon. Members on this side of the House who would


welcome the publication of an annual report?

Sir C. Osborne: Before the Minister makes his annual report, would he be good enough to look into the problem of how, allegedly, the American industrial worker is able to produce two or three times per hour more than his British counterpart—[Interruption.]—and will he see what can be done, from a technological point of view, to put this right?

Mr. Benn: That is another question but it is obviously one which awaits me. My personal annual report is still 363 days away, and I shall give consideration to it.

Selective Employment Tax

Mr. David Price: asked the Minister of Technology what estimates he has made of the number of new staff needed in his Department in connection with the new Selective Employment Tax, and of the cost of this additional work.

Mr. Shore: It is difficult to gauge the precise work load which will be involved, but it is estimated that not more than four extra staff will be needed. The additional annual cost falling on the Ministry of Technology Vote may be about £10,000.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the Minister aware that there will be a large number of applications from firms requiring certification for their applications for the premium? Is not all of that going to take time and require a large number of additional staff? Can the hon. Gentleman say what the timing of this will be?

Mr. Shore: Our best estimate at present is that four additional staff are required. The responsibility of the Ministry of Technology in this matter is, as will be known, for certification of scientific research establishments covered by Clause 1(2) of the Bill. As for the timing of it, I assume that we shall be in phase with the Ministry of Labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Dog Licences

Mr. Loveys: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue is received annually from dog licences.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): In 1964–65 the receipts from dog licences issued in England and Wales were £997,361 and in Scotland £76,572.

Mr. Loveys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to figures accepted by the R.S.P.C.A., nearly half of the dogs in this country are not licensed at all? Would not the Exchequer benefit and would not there be a smaller number of unwanted dogs if licences had to be obtained by purchasers before the dogs were collected from the vendors? May I also ask whether an increase in the licence fee has been considered?

Mr. Diamond: As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I am sure that he will be aware that proposals are at present before the House and new legislation is contemplated, under which variations in the licence fee can be more readily dealt with than at present when legislation is required. In answer to the other part of the supplementary question, no decision has been reached with regard to such a change.

Mr. Peyton: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would tell me if I am right in thinking that dog licences were originally started in order to help finance the war against the French? If that is so, would the right hon. Gentleman ask his Department to digest the information that Napoleon is dead and that we are at peace with France?

Mr. Diamond: I will take due note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, especially with regard to poodles.

Government Contracts

Mr. Winnick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the decision by the London Borough of Camden Council to ensure that all contracts have a clause barring any form of discrimination, what progress has been made in inserting a similar clause in all contracts with Government Departments.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): The Government are opposed to discriminatory practices wherever they occur, and are considering urgently the best means to ensure that


Government contractors do not engage in racial discrimination.

Mr. Winnick: May I ask the Chancellor whether the Government are willing to agree in principle to such a clause appearing at a later stage in Government contracts? Can the Chancellor say what progress is now taking place in considering the possibility of inserting such a clause in Government contracts?

Mr. Callaghan: The principle is quite clear. How far it can be embodied in a particular contract, or in Government contracts generally, is now the subject of consultations between Departments and with others outside the Government.

Mr. Iain Macleod: This Question does not say anything about racial discrimination. Is the Chancellor equally prepared to condemn, as I am, say, racial discrimination and, for example, discrimination between contractors who may or may not employ wholly union labour?

Mr. Callaghan: There is a Question later on the Notice Paper about the negotiations with trade unions, but I must say that I was assuming that my hon. Friend was referring to racial discrimination, because that was what the contract of the London Borough of Camden Council referred to.

Mr. Harold Walker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct Ministers not to place contracts with firms which refuse to recognise or negotiate with trade unions.

Mr. Callaghan: Government contractors have to comply with the Fair Wages Resolution, which deals with wages, conditions and membership of trade unions. If my hon. Friend knows of any particular cases of difficulty, I am sure the appropriate Minister will be glad to help him.

Mr. Walker: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he would look at the Written Answer given by the Minister of Labour in yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT, concerning a firm in my constituency which depends very largely on Government contracts for its existence and which refuses to recognise or negotiate with trade unions involved? In view of the pledge given by our party at the General Election to legislate against such firms,

may I invite him to anticipate that legislation?

Mr. Callaghan: I will certainly look at this because it is quite clear that firms, in their own interests, should be willing to negotiate with well-organised and recognised trade unions. There is no better path to industrial peace.

Mrs. Knight: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assure this House that he will not accede to the desires of various of his hon. Friends and curtail the freedom of firms to run their businesses as they see fit?

Mr. Callaghan: That seems to be asking me to give an assurance which I clearly have not given in the original reply.

Selective Employment Tax

Mr. Winnick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been received from charities, social service and voluntary organisations over the Selective Employment Tax.

Mr. Callaghan: Quite a number. The point has been met by providing for repayment of the tax paid in the Selective Employment Payments Bill.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Chancellor aware that there is a great deal of satisfaction among many charities that they are to be exempt from the Selective Employment Tax? Would it be possible to look again at the question of them having to pay the tax in the first place, since a number of charities will have the problem of raising the money even though it is to be refunded later?

Mr. Callaghan: I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have been present in the Chamber when we had exhaustive debates on this matter. It was made quite clear then that if we use this system, which is very economical in manpower, as has been revealed earlier this afternoon, there is no possibility of exempting charities from the initial payment. I must repeat that when the charities came to see me, they emphasised that it was not the money that was so important as the principle of being exempt from taxation.

Mr. Ramsden: Has the Chancellor had representations on behalf the London


Library which, although not strictly a charity, is fairly akin to many charities in view of the educational character of its work?

Mr. Callaghan: Not only have I had representations but the matter has been debated during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the United Nations Association is to be treated as a charitable institution for purposes of the Selective Employment Tax.

Mr. Diamond: The Bill now before Parliament provides for the repayment of the Selective Employment Tax to charities as defined under existing law. It is not for me to decide whether an individual body is a charity.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend consider amendments, if they are required, which will make it quite certain that the United Nations Association will not be made to pay this tax?

Mr. Diamond: My right hon. Friend put down a Question about charities which I have answered quite clearly. I can only repeat that it is not for me to decide whether an individual body is a charity. In the final result, that is for the courts.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I press my right hon. Friend on this matter? if the Government take a large sum from the United Nations Association, which will in great measure cripple its work, while they are paying more than the total budget of the Association to salesmen to propagate the sale of war machinery throughout the world, many people will feel that this is quite wrong.

Mr. Diamond: I can assure my right hon. Friend that there is no need for anxiety about any tax which the Government propose crippling the work of this excellent organisation.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Without anticipating the discussions which we shall have on a future Bill in Committee, is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that all these matters must go to the courts? Is it not possible to find a method of deciding whether what one might call the fringe charity is a charity or not,

perhaps within the discretion of the Minister? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter?

Mr. Diamond: Certainly. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in the sense that it is for the Charity Commissioners or for the Secretary of State for Education and Science or, in Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland to say whether any body is a charity under existing law. Only when there is dispute about that would appeal to the courts lie.

Bank for International Settlements(Annual Report)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will have a copy of the latest annual report of the Bank for International Settlements placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

Mr. Callaghan: The Library has a copy.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the fact that this report sets out the circumstances whereby, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins), our international financial transactions depend on assurances of the Government restraining internal demand, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that all his hon. Friends should study this report with care?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, and I hope the whole of it, not just selected parts which happen to meet the convenience of the hon. Gentleman. I thought that it was a well-balanced report.

Motor Vehicles (Taxation)

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider a scheme for taxing and insuring motor vehicles by means of a tax on petrol sales; and what would be the approximate administrative costs saved by altering the present method of taxation in this way.

Mr. Diamond: The administrative savings from substituting petrol duty for vehicle excise duty cannot be accurately estimated, partly because the registration procedure would have to be retained for


control purposes. My right hon. Friend has no plans for effecting vehicle insurance through the tax system, which would require a very extensive administrative machinery.

Mr. Whitaker: Would not my right hon. Friend agree, though, that this would prevent evasion, would save the time of civil servants and would fairly allocate the burden in proportion to those who enjoy motoring? Therefore, will he urgently reconsider this policy, which seems to have overwhelming advantages?

Mr. Diamond: I am not sure to what my hon. Friend is referring. The advantages do not exist in either part of the Question which I have answered.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would the Chief Secretary inform his hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) that there is already a petrol sales tax of 3s. 3d. a gallon and that the British public would not accept a further tax, even from a Socialist Government?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the present system is breaking down because hundreds of thousands of vehicle owners deliberately and consistently avoid paying the Road Fund tax and no attempts are being made to enforce it? Therefore, my right hon. Friend should either ensure that the tax is paid or drop it altogether.

Mr. Diamond: No. Reports and suggestions of the duty being evaded to this extent are very much exaggerated. Routine reports suggest that unlicensed use amounts to approximately 1 per cent.

Capital Gains Tax

Mr. John Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has so far been collected in Capital Gains Tax; and what has been the cost of assessing and collecting it.

Mr. Diamond: About £200,000 so far. The cost of assessing and collecting the tax cannot be segregated from the cost of administering other taxes.

Mr. Smith: Does not this mean that we should simplify this very complicated tax, thus freeing many able people, both inside the Revenue and outside, for more productive work?

Mr. Diamond: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recollect that we have had many debates on the tax from which it has emerged that proposals are called simplification but really refer to abolition.

Mr. Doughty: Does not the Chief Secretary's reply confirm that this tax is not worth the trouble taken in collecting it in view of the great damage it does in this country and other countries?

Mr. Diamond: No, Sir. It is too early to come to such a conclusion. The Budget estimate was for £5 million this year. There is no reason at present to alter that estimate.

VIETNAM

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a further statement on the Commonwealth Mission on Vietnam.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have nothing to add to my Answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 21st June.

Mr. Campbell: Although the Mission may not be received in person by the Hanoi régime, should it not now be active in consulting other Governments concerned in accordance with its original terms of reference if it is ever to promote a conference?

The Prime Minister: There may be a case for reactivating this Mission. if it had to be done, as I have already explained in the House, it could be done very quickly by consultation with other Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

Mr. Maxwell: Would my right hon. Friend agree that exhortation with the North Vietnamese pays as little as exhortation with anybody else? In view of this, would he consider whether this country could promise to contribute, say, £50 million or £100 million to the redevelopment of South and North Vietnam if they agree to peace talks?

The Prime Minister: I hope that appeals and exhortation will be successful. I am not certain that promises of economic aid would add anything. But my hon. Friend will be aware of the very imaginative programme being


worked out internationally for the Mekong River, costing, I think, 1,000 million dollars in Western aid, a great deal of it from the United States. He will also be aware of other work which will be undertaken by the Asian Bank.

Mr. Blaker: In any consultations within the Commonwealth, or within the Commonwealth Peace Mission if it is re-established, will the Prime Minister do his best to make sure that full weight is given to the views of the Governments of Australia and New Zealand?

The Prime Minister: When the original Commonwealth Peace Mission was appointed—and it was very enthusiastically supported by the then Prime Minister of Australia, Sir Robert Menzies, as he made clear—they were fully involved in not only the selection of the proposed Peace Mission, but also in its terms of reference and in the guide lines given to it.

Mr. Park: In considering reactivating the Commonwealth Peace Mission, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the widespread alarm caused by the growing impression that the United States Government no longer favour a negotiated settlement in Vietnam, but are now seeking to secure a military victory at any cost? Will he repudiate the view that the solution to the conflict lies in the partition of the country along Korean lines? Will he reaffirm that—[HON. MEMBER: "Too long."]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's supplementary question is long enough.

The Prime Minister: I have always said—and I think that the whole House agrees—that a political solution is the only solution which can bring peace in Vietnam. The actual form of that solution must be left for those who get round the conference table to negotiate it. But as recently as last Saturday the President of the United States made clear once again his Government's willingness to engage in totally unconditional discussions, given, as he said, only a room, a table and somebody to talk to.

Mr. Heath: In view of the emphasis which the Prime Minister has rightly placed on consultation with Australia and New Zealand over the Common-

wealth Mission, can he now say why it was that there was no consultation with Australia and New Zealand over his own statement dissociating the Government from the latest steps in American policy in Vietnam, especially in view of the fact that this had been commonly discussed in the Press as well as elsewhere for a number of weeks before the action was taken?

The Prime Minister: The Australian and New Zealand Governments were fully aware of our position, stated in the House as long ago as 21st December last, that if such bombing occurred we would dissociate ourselves from it. We have had no representations from them on that question at any point.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek clarification from President Johnson of the reasons for the negotiation by the United States Administration of 99-year leases on the main American bases in Vietnam, including Da Nang, with a view to taking action in the matter as co-chairman of the Control Commission and a party to the 1954 Geneva Agreements, which provide for the withdrawal of all foreign forces and bases from Vietnam.

The Prime Minister: The United States Government do not hold any such leases whether in Da Nang or anywhere else in Vietnam and I have certainly no knowledge of any negotiations for the purpose of acquiring any such leases.

Mr. Zilliacus: Would my right hon. Friend make further inquiries into this subject, because I have reason to believe that my information is correct? Furthermore, will he make it clear now that he would oppose any American measures that perpetuate their occupation of South Vietnam or partition Vietnam, even if those demands are put forward in unconditional negotiations backed by a large American force?

The Prime Minister: I should be very glad to consider any evidence that my hon. Friend cared to send me. I do not need to make any such representations to the United States Government. As recently as 18th June, President Johnson made it clear that they do not intend to hold bases in Vietnam. He said, "We are not fighting to remain in Vietnam, not


to retain bases there, and not to control the affairs of their people." It is not American policy, in fact.

MEMBERS (DUTY ABROAD)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Prime Minister how many Ministers and Members of the House were summoned to the United Kingdom from duty abroad at public expense on 13th to 15th June, 1966, and for what reasons; and what was the total cost.

The Prime Minister: No Ministers, Sir, but six Members of the Parliamentary delegation to the Western European Union meeting in Paris, returned at their own request a little earlier than had previously been planned. Since they did not return to Paris at public expense, no additional cost fell on public funds as a result of this.

Sir C. Osborne: While thanking the Prime Minister for that assurance, may I ask him if it was not rather hard on some of his younger colleagues to bring them home merely to vote, when he has a majority of 100 at his disposal?

The Prime Minister: We did not bring anyone home, except those who asked to be brought home. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in May of last year, when we offered pairs to all the Council of Europe delegates on the other side of the House, the Conservative leaders insisted on bringing them home from Strasbourg to vote in the steel nationalisation debate.

EUROPE (DISENGAGEMENT)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister to what extent he reached agreement with Chancellor Erhard on a policy of disengagement and the establishment of a zone in Europe free of nuclear weapons, foreign forces and military alliances, comprising both Germanys, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and limiting and putting under international supervision the conventional forces of these States.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the communiqué issued after the German Chancellor's visit which was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 26th May.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the German Chancellor, on his return to Germany, reported to the Bundestag that complete agreement had been reached between the two Governments on all essential questions concerning the present international situation? Was such agreement reached over German and European security on the basis of the Labour Party policy which is summarised in my Question, or was it reached on some other basis and, if so, what?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend always preserves to himself the right to interpret Labour Party policy. But, so far as disengagement is concerned, I explained the position of the Government, which is in full accordance with party policy over many years, in the debate which we had in July of last year.

Lord Balniel: Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten what Labour Party policy was? At the time of the last election, was it not to seek to create nuclear-free zones? May I ask him what initiatives have been taken by the Government, and will he perhaps respond to the frequent requests from his back benches to publish a statement indicating progress in disarmament talks?

The Prime Minister: I have answered many questions on this in the House and referred to it in a number of foreign affairs debates. Our position on nuclear-free zones was discussed with the German Government as long ago as March, 1965, and has been repeatedly discussed since then with our other allies. The position is that we should like to see nuclear-free zones, on condition that the zones are not only free of missiles stationed within those areas but of missiles targeted on those areas.

Mr. Hooson: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether in his talks with the German Chancellor or otherwise he has ever suggested that there should he exploratory talks between representatives of the N.A.T.O. Powers and representatives of the Warsaw Pact Powers with a view to seeing what possibilities there are for a détente in Europe?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Member will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made that point in recent N.A.T.O. meetings, and the point was made again


by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I think that it is very important that further progress should be made in this direction, not necessarily by a straight confrontation between N.A.T.O. and Warsaw Pact representatives in such discussions, but certainly on agreed lines in a whole series of bilateral discussions.

Mr. Heffer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is an entirely new situation in Europe at present, with the great possibility of a solution to the European problem? Has he given consideration to the idea which has been floated by the Russians, the French and others of a European security conference in order to try to reach agreement on a European security pact?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that there are opportunities for improved relations and a relaxation of tension between East and West in Europe. On the question of a security conference, we have always taken the view that it is important that such a conference, when it takes place, should be successful a id should not be a place where we get propaganda statements or the set positions of both sides. That is why we need a lot of patient discussion bilaterally between ourselves and the Soviet Union, and between other Eastern and Western European countries first.

HONOURS SYSTEM

Mr. Palmer: asked the Prime Minister if he will recommend to Her Majesty the appointment of a Commission to review and report on the honours system and methods used to make awards, and that the Commission be asked to make recommendations for enhancing the prestige and standing of awards and making styles and titles accord with the public dignity of a modern nation.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread feeling that the present honours system has fallen largely into disrepute and that it is no longer representative of true social merit? Will not an innovating Administration like his own consider fundamental reform?

The Prime Minister: I am giving a lot of thought to these matters myself, and I hope shortly to be able to make a statement in the House. I do not think that a Commission is the right way of dealing with the situation.

Mr. John Smith: Would it not meet the point if the Prime Minister were to make his recommendations for honours more from amongst those who apply for them, as is done with the new Queen's Award for Industry?

The Prime Minister: In the case of the Queen's Award for Industry, it is necessary for the Advisory Committee to have particulars of the export and productivity performances of firms. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if it were a question of appointing those who apply for it, I would have a very wide field of selection, but I am not sure that the qualitative result would be as satisfactory as the quantitative.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Biggs-Davison.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Why does the Prime Minister make such a brutally negative reply to his hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Gentleman to ask the next Question, No. Q6.

HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Prime Minister what consideration has been given by Her Majesty's Government to a reform of the House of Lords designed to make it more systematically representative of the estates, professions, trades and religious and cultural life of the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister: I have no evidence that there is any general desire for a reform in the composition of the House of Lords.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has not this been an outstanding question for more than 50 years now? While the House of Lords is an extremely valuable and expert body, is it not desirable to seek to make it more so while keeping an elected proportion of hereditary peers? Will the Prime Minister take advantage of the French Prime Minister's visit to discuss with him


the ideas underlying the French proposal to amalgamate the Economic and Social Council with the Senate, with a view to having a second chamber such as I have suggested?

The Prime Minister: Now that I have heard the hon. Gentleman's suggestion for the composition of the House of Lords, I am even more reinforced in my view that there are many ideas about composition, but I do not know that there is any great enthusiasm for any one proposal. What has been a matter of concern for some years—and it was dealt with in the recent election manifesto of the Labour Party—is the question not of the composition but of the powers of the House of Lords.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say where on earth he got the idea that there is no pressure in the country or in this House to reform the House of Lords, if not to abolish it completely? Will he give an assurance that the promise, threat or whatever it was in the Labour Party manifesto to curb its delaying powers is only the first step in the reform of the place along the corridor?

The Prime Minister: In fairness to my hon. Friend, I should make it clear that he has not been one of the applicants for honours. He obviously misheard me if he thinks that what I said was that there was no desire for a reform of the House of Lords. I said that there was no desire for a reform of the composition of the House of Lords. The promise in the Labour Party manifesto referred to powers, not composition.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Have any of the Prime Minister's right hon. or hon. Friends asked for a life peerage within the last 48 hours?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, there have been no such requests, and the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that since October, 1964, we have not been ennobling any sitting Members or giving them knighthoods, or baronetcies, or anything else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sorensen."] It is, of course, the fact—I overlooked this—that two of my hon. Friends went to another place shortly after the formation of the Government in October, 1964, but the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who had a long, distinguished record as Patronage

Secretary in the matter of rewarding his back benchers, will have noticed that we have not given knighthoods, baronetcies or peerages to sitting Members from that moment.

Mr. John Lee: Will my right hon Friend nevertheless bear in mind that, whatever attempts are made to improve the House of Lords, there is only one reform that we want, and that is to get rid of it quickly?

The Prime Minister: Even on that proposition there are many views in different parts of the House and in the country, but I think that the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) will recognise that a considerable number of scientists, professional men, and representatives of the religious and cultural life of the United Kingdom, to quote his Question, have recently been recommended to go to the other place and that this, over a period, is doing what he wants to do in the last few words of his Question.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: With regard to the power of the House of Lords, would not the best plan be to introduce a Parliament Bill in reverse so that when a Measure of law reform has passed the upper House twice, it should pass this House subject only to a six months' delay?

The Prime Minister: That is a very interesting proposition, and of course a great many law reform Measures are now emanating from the other place. But I think that this is a matter to which one would have to give further consideration. Perhaps in due course it might be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we must move on.

RHODESIA

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House. I should like to make a statement on Rhodesia.
As the House knows, talks have been taking place in Salisbury between British and Rhodesian officials, on an exploratory basis and without commitment on either side, to see whether a basis exists


for negotiations. The purpose of these talks has been to see whether negotiations based on the six principles could ultimately take place, and with whom those negotiations would be held, on a constitutional basis.
I should like to thank the House for its patience in not pressing for information; but, since I have to inform the House that these talks are being adjourned for a period, it is right that without breaching the secrecy which I have told the House I consider essential, I should say something about the stage which has been reached. The discussions have been useful in clarifying attitudes and intentions and in further identifying the problems which have to be met in order to achieve a solution acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, and acceptable to this House. It has been agreed that there should now be a pause for further consideration of the respective positions, before the talks are resumed later in the month. In the interval sanctions will, of course, be fully maintained.
So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, they intend to employ the pause in hard thought on all the main aspects of the Rhodesian problem, particularly the right constitutional arrangements within Rhodesia and Rhodesia's future place in the family of nations. These are related and, indeed, inseparable aspects of the same problem, for there would be no purpose in reaching agreement on the constitutional future of Rhodesia if that agreement did not at the same time win for Rhodesia acceptance in international society. It is expected that the talks will be resumed at a fairly early date. The House will agree that it is important that they should then make more rapid progress, for I am sure that the House will also agree that the present situation cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.

Mr. Heath: The House is glad that the right hon. Gentleman has found it possible to make this statement. At the same time, will he realise that the House will find itself in a slightly difficult position over the timetable which he has announced in that after this pause the talks will be resumed, the House will he rising, presuambly, early in August, and I understand that there is to be a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Con-

ference in September, so that the House will not have any opportunity of expressing its views about the progress of the negotiations or any of the issues being discussed? Will the Prime Minister kindly bear this in mind? Perhaps we could put him on notice that we may have to ask him for a further statement, bearing in mind the possibility of requiring a debate later.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right in the points that he has made. I have in mind what he said three or four weeks ago—and I agreed with him—that there must be a fuller statement before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess. I cannot at this moment say how much progress might have been made by that time, but I agree that there must be a statement which will be as full as we can make it. Whatever the state of the discussions, I hope to make the statement in sufficient time before the Recess to allow the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, if they wish, to debate it afterwards.

Mr. Bellenger: Although the House understands the difficulties of this situation, nevertheless the mere fact that discussions are taking place on an official level has raised hopes which we trust will not be dashed, but they cannot go on interminably. Will my right hon. Friend therefore announce to the House at some time when these talks are to be raised from that level to something much more high-powered, because the situation to which the House has agreed, namely, the imposition of sanctions, is causing a tremendous deterioration in the Rhodesian economy which will not be conductive to a settlement of this dispute if it is delayed for too long?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend in expressing concern about the situation—not only because of sanctions, but for many other reasons—if these talks do not make progress. I could not give any indication of the rate, or even the probability or otherwise of the talks becoming negotiations until we have made more progress in the talks, because I am sure the House will insist that there should be no question of negotiations with anyone unless we are satisfied not only on the constitutional basis, but that they are likely


to give effect to the six principles on which successive Governments and this House have insisted.

Mr. Sandys: Will the Prime Minister see that the adjournment is as short as possible, because delays in this kind if situation are obviously dangerous?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I shall certainly see that the adjournment is as short as we can make it, though if talks are going round and round on some rather narrow aspect of one or other of the principles, this, too, is dangerous, and this is why I said that during the adjournment in the next few days we will give very deep thought to any further ideas that we may have to try to bring this matter to a successful conclusion, given the conditions which the House will insist on our keeping to.

Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is to be congratulated on the seriousness and, above all, the secrecy of these talks? But, further to that, will he bear in mind that a number of the measures which Rhodesia has to take to meet sanctions will be irrevocable, and will link her more closely with South Africa, and that her readjustments to the south with South Africa are very much easier than the adjustments of Zambia to the north, and that as time goes on it will become more and more difficult to get back to a reasonable relationship?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that these talks have been serious, and I am glad to say that they have been secret. A high level of secrecy has been maintained. My hon. and learned Friend will recognise that the solution must be one which is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, it must be acceptable to this House, and it must be acceptable to the general community of nations.
My hon. and learned Friend will realise—and here I am thinking of what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said a few moments ago about the Commonwealth conference in September, for example—that the British Government are in a most intolerable position in that we have to bear the international responsibility for the Rhodesian situation because of the clear admission

all over the world about where sovereignty lies; and that in an international sense we have throughout these months, as our predecessors did, been sheltering Rhodesia from world opinion. It is extremely difficult and galling to have to carry that position when, at the same time, our physical power, in terms of our ability to affect the situation and the settlement, is so limited for reasons that we all know and about which none of us can be happy.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it will not come as a surprise to some of us that there has not proved to be a sufficient identity of views between the two sides to form a basis for negotiations? Are we to take it that the communiqué from Lagos on 12th January still obtains, particularly the reference to the period of direct rule, moving to constitutional talks? Secondly, since the talks are to be adjourned until later this month, is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that a period of three weeks' hard thinking and three weeks' continued sanctions will produce a very dramatic change of heart? Would it not be better to adjourn the talks until September, when sanctions will have had longer to bite?

The Prime Minister: The House debated the Lagos communiqué very fully after the Lagos Conference, and I made a full statement on the question of direct rule, the 1961 Constitution, and the rest, on 25th January.
The hon. Gentleman refers to three weeks' pause and then three weeks' negotiations. I hope that in this pause it will be possible for attitudes to develop—we certainly intend to think very hard about the timetable here—which will help to force the pace a little.
I do not agree with the hon. Member that the sensible way would be to adjourn until September and let sanctions work more severely on Rhodesia. In any case, as he knows, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, there is the Commonwealth conference in September, and I feel that it would be a great mistake to cease to make any progress which could be made while waiting for that.

Mr. Dickens: During the adjournment will the Prime Minister consider taking


steps to broaden the basis of these talks to include representatives of African opinion in Southern Rhodesia, since the Africans form the majority of people in that country?

The Prime Minister: These are preliminary talks, designed to lead ultimately, if they are successful, to discussions on a constitutional basis. As I have said, we still have to settle the question with whom these discussions should then take place. In these preliminary talks it would not be helpful—if l thought it would be I should recommend it—to widen the basis of the talks. My hon. Friend will remember that when I was in Salisbury last October I had wide-ranging talks at the highest level will every branch of African, Asian and coloured opinion.

Mr. Wall: When these talks restart at the end of this month, does the Prime Minister intend that they should be at a Civil Service or at Ministerial level? Does he recall the appeal that Mr. Smith made publicly that they should continue at Ministerial level? Is there any unbridgeable gap at the moment?

The Prime Minister: The position has always been—it was Mr. Smith who stated it a long time ago, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have also said this—that they should be without commitment at an official level, and not a Ministerial level. I do not know how the hon. Member could suggest that there could be such talks at Ministerial level, because there are no Ministers in Rhodesia. That is why I said that one of the problems to be solved is the problem of the constitutional basis of the talks, and with whom they should take place.

Mr. John Lee: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fact remains that this adjournment suggests that they have run into difficulties? Will he bear in mind that some hon. Members on this side of the House who have been waiting impatiently for the sanctions to take effect are beginning to think that the time has come for more drastic action to be taken to restore law and order in Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that sanctions are having a deep effect in Rhodesia. If he is not

aware of that, I know that many people in high places in Rhodesia are aware of it. I have made it clear that until this issue is solved there will be no question of relaxing sanctions. But I have not heard any suggestion that on the part of Her Majesty's Government—the position of Zambia is a different one—there should be a tightening up of sanctions.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister has rightly emphasised that any solution must be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole—this has always been known as the fifth principle—and also to the House, but I think he added this afternoon that it must also be acceptable to the international community. It is not difficult to think of some countries to whom the only acceptable solution would certainly not be acceptable to this House. Will the Prime Minister recognise that the additional principle which he has enunciated is one that we shall want to consider carefully and to have clearly defined?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. On a number of occasions I have sought to draw the attention of the House to the fact that although this is a matter for British legal responsibility—it is not contested in the House—and although we have sought to keep it in our own hands, there is deep international concern about it. We are "carrying the can" and sheltering Rhodesia while remaining powerless to get the solution that we in this House would consider right. I do not think that anyone could devise a constitution for Rhodesia which would be universally acceptable to all the 100 members of the United Nations, ranging from one extreme very much to another. We have to produce a solution that we think is the right one, and one that we can defend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,

That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Bowden.]

VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL [Lords]

Bill referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Bowden.]

SEXUAL OFFENCES (No. 2)

3.41 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law of England and Wales relating to homosexual acts.
It is now nearly nine years since the Wolfenden recommendations were made—a period during which the recommendations have been so much publicised and so much debated that if public opinion polls are any guide there is little doubt that the public understand and, by a substantial majority, approve those recommendations.
Nevertheless, in seeking leave to introduce a Bill of this kind it is important to emphasise that the recommendations made in the Wolfenden Report, as in my proposed Bill, would result in a penalty for a homosexual offence against any boy under the age of 16 which could be up to life imprisonment; that it would mean, under the Bill as under Wolfenden, that any indecent assault upon a boy could result in a period of ten years' imprisonment; that any public act of indecency, as now, could result in two years' imprisonment; and that further, under the Bill and by way of the recommendations of Wolfenden, in the case of any act of gross indecency against a youth between the ages of 16 and 21 it would result in the present penalty of two years' imprisonment being increased to one of five years' imprisonment.
More, my Bill would embody a Clause similar to that hammered out in another place. It would protect military discipline in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, so that Section 66 of the Army Act would remain undisturbed—that Section providing punishment for disgraceful and immoral conduct.
Further, in accordance with the Wolfenden proposals, the Bill would provide that any premises found to be used for homosexual practices would constitute a brothel, attracting the same penalties as would be the case for premises now used for heterosexual practices. Only those wilfully blinding themselves to the nature of our proceedings could suggest that the Bill would assist or approve of homosexual practices, or would condone any act of

indecency against a youngster, or any public display of homosexual conduct.
No one suggests that the House approves of fornication, adultery or lesbianism because we do not catalogue them in a list of crimes. Nor would any such approval be extended to homosexual activities by the Bill, particularly as, in so many instances, homosexual conduct would remain a crime attracting the most severe penalties. But the Bill would mean that the burden of criminality would no longer be attached to acts committed in private between adults.
I believe that the present law is unjust and unenforceable. The Home Office spokesman in another place suggested that there were half a million homosexuals in the country. Evidence given to the Wolfenden Committee suggested that there were perhaps about three-quarters of a million. Certainly, since there can he little doubt that the sexual drive of those fortunate enough to be heterosexual may be attributed similarly to homosexuals, but directed, of course, elsewhere, it must be, as the present law stands, that millions of criminal acts, speaking legalistically, are committed each year.
It is an absurdity that, as a result of the law as it stands, apart from motorists, homosexuals comprise the largest class of criminals in the land. Yet the position is, as we all know, that there are fewer than 100 convictions in a year amongst homosexual adults committing acts in private. The detection rate, clearly, therefore, is derisory. The law is as random in its application as it is demonstrably unenforceable. Those who wish to retain the law as it stands must face up to the fact that if it could ever be enforceable at all this could only be done with the most massive recruitment of police ever envisaged, by the invasion of privacy in a manner which I believe the whole House would find intolerable. Nor can it be pleaded that the law can bring reformation. I have said before, and may be permitted to repeat, that to send homosexuals to overcrowded, hermetically-sealed male prisons is as therapeutically useless as incarcerating a sex maniac in a harem.
Can the law be said to be a deterrent? How would we married men respond to a law enforcing celibacy upon us? Would we be deterred? Since these wretched men have similar compulsions, only,


lamentably, directed to men and not women, how is it credible that the law acts as a deterrent? In the meantime, the law has side effects which, as the Lord Chancellor has said, means that it does more harm than good to the public. It is a "blackmailer's charter" which no sympathetic administrative action can or has prevented. Almost half the total cases of blackmail reviewed over three years by the Wolfenden Committee showed that they had some connection with homosexuality.
The law as it stands is an invitation to hoodlums. Too many recent documented cases have revealed that it allows them to steal with impunity. It prevents the integration of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens into the community, for any person who suffers the appalling misfortune of being a homosexual is bound to be under the gravest burdens. For most of them there can be no question but that they are permanently denied the blessings of family life, the gifts and rewards of parenthood, the gift of a mature love with a woman.
As the law brands them as criminals and outlaws, their isolation is intensified, they become increasingly estranged and many retreat into a ghetto, cut off from involvement in the community, feeling hostility from the community. Too often they react by succumbing to anti-social attitudes.
It is because they are informed by compassion that it is not surprising that the Church Assembly, the Church of England Moral Welfare Council, the Roman Catholic Advisory Committee, set up by the late Cardinal Griffin, the Methodist Conference and the Unitarians, with all the clinical experience which comes to them from their pastoral care, have all called for the implementation of the Wolfenden Report. Is it not time, is it not overdue, that the Churches' call was heeded in this House?
In Belgium, in Holland, in Sweden, in Denmark and in France, the law is substantially the same as that recommended by the Wolfenden Committee. I understand that the law has recently been altered permissively in Czechoslovakia. The Home Secretary pointed out recently that there is no evidence that the relaxation of the law in Austria in 1960 has led to any increase there in homosexuality. To change the law will

not take us into uncharted seas. Indeed, this country went boldly through its history until but 80 years ago free from the present harsh laws without the decay which those who oppose the Bill so frequently prognosticate.
Yet I believe that the worst failure of the present law is the preoccupation with punishment of homosexuals which leads to the community not taking the preventative action which might possibly save a little boy from the terrible fate of growing up a homosexual. Little as we know of the etiology, certain it is that there are dangers to a boy if an over-possessive mother ties him to her with a silver cord so that the boy, enveloped in a feminine aura, is never able to break out and assert his masculine independence.
Equally certain it is that among fatherless boys there is a disturbingly high rate of homosexuals. A lad without a father, lacking a male figure with whom to identify, is sometimes left with a curse, for such it must be, of a male body encasing a feminine soul. If such are some of the precipitating causes of the ambiguity of the sexual rule amongst these people, who, with any compassion, can demand that to one disability in childhood must be added the stigma of criminality in adulthood?
All in this House, on both sides and all sections of opinion, I know, wish to see a diminution in the incidence of homosexuality. But I believe that education in mothercraft and, what is perhaps even more important, education in fathercraft, the mobilising of our social resources to lend more aid to the fatherless, the provision of more male child care officers and more male teachers are far more likely to succeed in this respect than praying in aid our penal system.
We have debated this issue within and without the House now for nine years. Earl Attlee, when he supported this change, said recently that far more is being said about homosexuality than need be said. I think that that is right. There is an element of morbidity in this continuing debate. I hope that the House today will take the step which may bring this debate, ere long, to its conclusion.

3.59 p.m.

Sir Cyril Osborne: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh, no.

Sir C. Osborne: I hope that hon. Members will not make up their minds, at least until they have heard what I want to say.
I beg leave to oppose the Bill and I will be brief. I believe that the Bill could have such grave social consequences that it is the duty of all hon. Members who are not already pledged to vote against it. I will give three practical reasons for so claiming. The first is that the sponsors have never explained why the Bill should not apply to the 600,000 men in the Armed Forces, nor how discipline will be maintained if private buggery is permitted to civilians and denied to the soldiers, sailors and airmen. [Laughter.] Hon. Members gave my opponent a fair hearing. I hope that they will give me one.
Nor have the sponsors explained how discipline could be maintained if this licence were given to our fighting men. I believe that the result of the Bill would be an increase in the very crime, the bestial habits, which the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) deplores. The very fact that the Bill would increase the penalties for crimes against boys under 16 and youths under 21 surely emphasises the immense dangers that could result if this filthy habit were to increase.
My second practical objection is this. I claim that the sponsors of the Bill have no mandate whatever for the Measure. I hold in my hand the three party election manifestos. The Liberals, the Conservatives and the Socialists did not put one word in their manifestos about this so-called homosexual reform. I therefore say that the sponsors have no mandate whatever for the Bill. Why was there not a word in the party manifestos? We are all politicians and we have all sought votes. The framers of our manifestos knew full well that the ordinary people of Britain, to whom we go for our votes, would not have stomached this proposal.
The hon. Member for Pontypool referred to the Army Act and to "disgraceful conduct" of "an unnatural kind". Ordinary people are horrified at the thought that this sort of thing might increase. I am certain that had it been put in the party manifestos it would have been rejected by the electorate.
The Bill would appear to give Parliamentary and public approval to this revolting form of immorality. Thus, I put it to the House that the sponsors of the Bill, who have previously claimed that there are about 1 million "homos" in this country, cannot really make that claim. I do not believe it. I do not believe that our country is as rotten as all that. It is an awful slur on the good name of the country to say such a thing.
Further, if this House is representative of the nation, it would mean that there are at least 30 "homos" in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Names."] The allegation comes from the benches opposite, not from me. I am denying it. it is exactly 21 years today that I first had the great honour of being made an hon. Member of this House. During those years I have had the great privilege of having friendships with hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will allow the hon. Member to proceed.

Sir C. Osborne: Dirty minds come to dirty conclusions. I have never come across one case of a "homo" in this House.
How can the sponsors of the Bill be so certain that this practice is so widespread? Will the hon. Member for Pontypool say how many "homos" he has known in Parliament during his membership of the House?
The third practical objection I have to the Bill—[Interruption.] I regard this as a desperately serious matter and I urge hon. Gentlemen opposite, especially those below the Gangway, to take note of this—is that there is no Parliamentary time available for the Bill.

>Sir Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Sir C. Osborne: No Private Members' Bill can be made law unless the Government of the day find the necessary time. I have more confidence in the northern common sense of the Prime Minister than to believe that he would give Parliamentary time for this Bill, and thus have the odium of this dirty Measure tied to his party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Shame or not, I am standing up for what


I believe to be right. The Government's timetable is already choked. Eight major Bills are already going through and more are waiting to go through.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have from time to time complained that no Parliamentary time is available to discuss urgent public problems like Vietnam and the Common Market. We have not been able to discuss them because of the lack of Parliamentary time. Indeed, a week last Thursday the House was told seven times during one hour that the Government would like to bring in certain reforms, but that the necessary Parliamentary time was not available.

It is scandalous that the hon. Member for Pontypool and the sponsors of the Bill should claim that the private privileges of homosexuals should, from the point of view of Parliamentary time, come in front of the urgent matters which hon. Members want to discuss. I beg hon. Members, with my whole heart, to vote against the Motion.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 100.

Division No. 94.]
AYES
[4.7 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dunnett, Jack
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Albu, Austen
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Anderson, Donald
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Archer, Peter
Ellis, John
Judd, Frank


Armstrong, Ernest
English, Michael
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Ashley, Jack
Ennals, David
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Astor, John
Ensor, David
Kirk, Peter


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lambton, Viscount


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Awdry, Daniel
Fisher, Nigel
Lee, John (Reading)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lector, Miss Joan


Balniel, Lord
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lipton, Marcus


Barnes, Michael
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Barnett, Joel
Floud, Bernard
Loveys, W. H.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Foley, Maurice
Luard, Evan


Bell, Ronald
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lubbock, Eric


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bessell, Peter
Forrester, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fowler, Gerry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Biffen, John
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
MacColl, James


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacDermot, Niall


Booth, Albert
Freeson, Reginald
Macdonald, A. H.


Boston, Terence
Gardner, A. J.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mackie, John


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Ginsburg, David
Mackintosh, John P.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Bradley, Tom
Gregory, Arnold
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Brinton, Sir Edward
Gresham Cooke, R.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Brinton, Sir Talton
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maddan, Martin


Brooks, Edwin




Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marquand, David


Brown, Bob (N'e'tle-upon-Tyne, W.
Hamling, William
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Buchan, Norman
Hattersley, Roy
Maxwell Hysiop, R. J.


Cant, R. B.
Hazell, Bert
Mayhew, Christopher


Carlisle, Mark
Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish, Robert



Henig, Stanley
Mendelson, J. J.


Carmichael, Neil
Herbison, Rt. FM. Margaret
Mikardo, Ian


Channon, H. P. G.
Higgins, Terence L.
Millan, Bruce


Chapman, Donald
Hirst, Geoffrey
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Coe, Dents
Hooley, Frank
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Concannon, J. D.
Hooson, Emlyn
Moonman, Eric


Crawshaw, Richard
Hornby, Richard
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Horner, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland


Dalyell, Tam
Howell, David (Guildford)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Murray, Albert


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Howie, W.
Neave, Airey


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Newens, Stan


d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


de, Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Delargy, Hugh
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby,S.)


Dell, Edmund
Hunt, John
Oakes, Gordon


Dewar, Donald
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Ogden, Eric


Dickens, James
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oram, Albert E.


Dobson, Ray
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras,S.)
Orbach, Maurice


Donnelly, Desmond
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Orme, Stanley


Driberg, Tom
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)




Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Royle, Anthony
Varley, Eric G.


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sharples, Richard
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Palmer, Arthur
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Pardoe, John
Sheldon, Robert
Wall, Patrick


Park, Trevor
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Wallace, George


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Walters, Denis


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Silkin, John (Deptford)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)
Weitzman, David


Peyton, John
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wellbeloved, James


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Skeffington, Arthur
Whitaker, Ben


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Smith, John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Prior, J. M. L.
Snow, Julian
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Probert, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Redhead, Edward
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Rees, Merlyn
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Reynolds, G. W.
Swingler, Stephen
Winnick, David


Richard, Ivor
Taverne, Dick
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Worsley, Marcus


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Yates, Victor


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Thornton, Ernest
Zilliacus, K.


Roebuck, Roy
Thorpe, Jeremy



Rose, Paul
Tilney, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Tinn, James
Mr. St. John-Stevas and


Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Tuck, Raphael
Dr. David Kerr.





NOES



Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mawby, Ray


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Alldritt, Walter
Goodhew, Victor
Murton, Oscar


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gurden, Harold
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bence, Cyril
Hannan, William
Neal, Harold


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Harper, Joseph
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
O'Malley, Brian


Black, Sir Cyril
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Blackburn, F.
Hiley, Joseph
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Braine, Bernard
Hoy, James
Pentland, Norman


Brewis, John
Hunter, Adam
Percival, Ian


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Iremonger, T. L.
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pym, Francis


Cary, Sir Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Randall, Harry


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cooke, Robert
Kenyon, Clifford
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Cordle, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Small, William


Costain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Stainton, Keith


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kitson, Timothy
Symonds, J. B.


Crowder, F. P.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Talbot, John E.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Leadbitter, Ted
Tomney, Frank


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Urwin, T. W.


Doughty, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Vickers, Dame Joan


Drayson, G. B.
McBride, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


Eden, Sir John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mapp, Charles
Winterbottom, R. E.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marten, Neil
Younger, Hn. George


Gibson-Watt, David
Mathew, Robert



Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maude, Angus
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Sir C. Taylor and 




Mr. Dance.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Abse, Mr. Grimond, Mr. Wood, Mr. C. Pannell. Mr. Strauss, Sir P. Rawlinson, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Hugh Fraser, Mr. Varley, Mr. Ian Gilmour, Mr. St. John-Stevas, and Mr. John Horner.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (No. 2)

Bill to amend the law of England and Wales relating to homosexual acts, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES 1966–67

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967, for the following services connected with University Education. Polytechnics and other Colleges, namely:

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1966–67



£


Class VII, Vote 1, Department of Education and Science
10


Class VII, Vote 5, Universities and Colleges, etc., Great Britain
10


Total
£20

Orders of the Day — UNIVERSITY EDUCATION

4.20 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: The main object of this debate is to register the dissatisfaction which vie on this side of the Committee—and, I hope, not only on this side—feel at the way in which the Government have handled the university building programme during the past year.
The expansion of higher education has been one of our most creditable national achievements during the 1960s. The Secretary of State himself in last January's debate described the figures of university expansion as "remarkable" and quoted them. He said:
In 1939, the total number of university students was 50,000 and the entry 15,000. In 1960, the number of students was just under 108,000 and the entry nearly 30,000. Today the number of students is 168,000 and last October's entry was over 52,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 242]
Those by any standard are remarkable figures. At the same time the student population in colleges of education has risen from 28,000 in 1958 to over 70,000 at the present time: and full-time advanced level courses in technical colleges have risen in the same period from 13,000 to approximately 40,000.
All these figures reflect the greatest credit on the institutions concerned, but they would not have been possible without the capital expenditure which we on this side of the Committee authorised when we were in power. I commend the achievements of higher education in Britain during the 1960s to the attention of all those, whether of Right-wing or Left-wing sympathies, who suggest that nothing right happened under the Macmillan Government after the "Wind of Change" speech.
Perhaps even more important than the expansion was the commitment which the Government of which I was a member took on, with the approval of the whole House, immediately on the publication of the Robbins Committee Report in November, 1963. I remind the Committee of two paragraphs from the Government's statement then issued:
The basic assumption of the Report is that courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue and who wish to do so. The Government accept this assumption and also the calculations on the number of places, both in higher education as a whole and in institutions of university status, which flow from it.
The Government adopt the Committee's calculations for 1967–68 and 1973–74 as their objectives for those years. Plans are being put in hand and resources will be provided accordingly.
That commitment was an important declaration of policy and it was also right. It remains the basis on this side of the Committee of our policy for higher education. It was right in the national interest because of the significance of educational advance to any industrial nation at a time of rapid technological change.
Of course, this applies not just to university education but also to technical education at all levels, as I said to the House when we last debated education. I said that the quality of the education service depends not only on how we train our top alphas but on the quality of the training we give to our betas and beta minors as well. We should also consider the levels of general education in the schools.
Nevertheless, it is perhaps worth remembering in the context of this debate


that the National Plan singles out the importance of university education
because of its contribution to the growth of the economy.
I remember the right hon. Gentleman's speech on 4th April, 1963, when he was dealing with overall policy for economic growth and specifically referred to the importance of
'more rapid spending on all forms of higher education."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 703.]
Over and above the national interest we thought it was right as a matter of social justice that competition for university entry should not be allowed to become more intense than it was already.
It is important for the purpose of our present debate to bear in mind the most recent U.C.C.A. Report, which suggests very strongly that the pressure of demand on university places is not going to slacken. It is probable that the trend in the proportion of qualified school leavers will compensate to a greater degree than had been expected for the fall in the size of university age groups. It is certain from the Department's published statistics that the Robbins Committee underrated the provision for full-time education that would have to be made by 1973, despite the magnificent work by Professor Mosier and his teams which use statistics and projections in a more rigorous way than any earlier Report in this country.
The commitment made at the time of the Robbins Report was regarded by the universities as the start of a completely new chapter in the history of higher education in this country. What Lord Fulton said to the Estimates Sub-Committee was right. He said:
After Robbins there was an air of confidence in the universities; they thought 'Now we can expand, we shall have the money to do it'… The universities had got into a state of mind in which they felt that if they expanded they would only be lowering their standards … I think they thought that the Robbins Report and the way in which it was received was a new kind of guarantee this was no longer going to happen …
There is not the same confidence today and one important reason has been the unhappy story of the university building programme during the past year. During this period the university building programme has suffered three blows,

which I shall describe. First I shall deal briefly, because we have been over this ground in the House, with the consequences of the Chancellor's measures last July. The Unversity Grants Committee said that the building programmes announced in 1964 for the period up to April 1966 were the minimum needed if the Robbins target of places for 1967–68 was not merely to be met but to be sustained. I emphasise that the need was not only to build up to the requisite number of places but to sustain that number. As a result of last July's measures, £15 million worth of university building starts were held over from last year's programme and only £12 million has been added to programmes for this year and next year. So that even by the end of this Parliament universities will still not have fully recovered from the effect of cuts made in programmes which we on this side of the Committee originally authorised as far back as 1964.
There have been two other factors which we have not debated in this House. My second point is that it came to me, and no doubt to other hon. Members, as a genuine surprise and shock that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to add anything to the 1968–69 programme to take account of the results of the U.G.C. inquiry into obsolescences. When we were in office we always recognised the 1967–68 and 1968–69 figures as provisional and subject to review in the light of results of this inquiry. Sir John Wolfenden confirmed this in evidence to the Estimates Sub-Committee, Question 369, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State himself said on 26th January that the 1968–69 figure was "subject to adjustment".
The U.G.C. has now completed its survey on obsolescence. I should imagine that it had a full schedule of buildings which are now more or less useless in some cases for their present purpose and in other cases for any purpose, and also of buildings where quite a modest sum would render them efficient. I put it strongly to the right hon. Gentleman that it would do a great deal for university morale if he would look at this again and say that he will allocate a special sum in addition to the programme already announced for 1968–69 to be devoted to making good obsolescence. I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Member


for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), with whom I had many passages at arms when he was a Treasury Minister and I was at the Department of Education. He has confirmed to me that it never occurred to him that when it came to the point some special allocation would not be made for this purpose.
Thirdly, there has been a rise in costs since the autumn of 1963 which has effectively cut the value of authorisations by £3 million to £4 million. The right hon. Gentleman has just approved an 8½ per cent. increase in cost limits for school buildings with consequent increases in money value of the school building programme. It has been suggested in several quarters that 8½ per cent. is an inadequate figure, and it certainly casts some doubt on the intention to hold to National Plan education targets in terms of constant prices. But having met the increase in costs for school building, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman at least allow what he would call a"fair"increase for university building costs and adjust the university building programme accordingly? This is all the more important as the consequences of the Selective Employment Tax for building costs are still to come.
As it is even the £25 million cannot all be allocated, since I understand that tenders cannot always be obtained at present cost limits, so there is a need to go up by an extra 4½ per cent. out of the reserves which the U.G.C. keeps for these purposes. We consider that, bearing in mind the continuing pressure of numbers; the built-in momentum of expansion in many university departments, which is a highly important factor; the need to repair obsolescence; arid the rise in university building costs; £25 million is, as I put it at Question Time, a grotesquely inadequate building programme for 44 university institutions for 1968–69.
The years following 1968 are the years in which we should be making good obsolescence in preparation for the renewed rise in the size of the university age groups during the 1970s. We cannot afford to go into the 1970s with an under-capitalised university base. That is why we on this side of the Committee say that the minimum annual university building programme should be £30 million.
In real terms, even that would be no bigger than the programme which we were authorising for the universities, together with the colleges of advanced technology which then had a separate programme, during the years immediately before the Robbins Committee's Report.
If the right hon. Gentleman, as he justly may, prays in aid the economic situation, I can only repeat that I have not found a single audience that thought that it made sense to cut university and technical college building and yet plan in the National Plan to spend £100 million a year subsidising school meals and milk.
We must not forget that the task facing the universities is not merely of reaching a numerical target but of sustaining the increased numbers without sacrifice of standards. The burden is particularly heavy on the older civic universities like Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield and London. All too often people write in the Press as though the universities consisted of Oxford and Cambridge and then the new universities, whereas the older civic universities are providing many of the most important courses in the Arts and fundamental science, and they make a large contribution to learning. I can make no claim to being an academic myself, but many of the current works of history which I enjoy reading are by lecturers or professors in the older civic universities. We have to make adequate provision for these universities as well as building up the 20 new ones.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it Conservative Party policy at the moment—perhaps I should know—to cut school milk services and school meals to provide finance for the universities?

Sir E. Boyle: Our policy was stated in the early hours of the morning just about a year ago when Mr. Christopher Chataway first spoke. I would far rather see some increase in basic school meals charge, provided that there were proper schemes of remission for those in need, than have cuts in university building of the severity that we have today. I would gladly state that anywhere.
I have three points to put to the right hon. Gentleman before leaving the question of the universities. I shall try to be as brief as possible as we started our debate so late. The Minister will not be


surprised if I return again to the question of the projected new technological university for the North-East. He must soon complete the "urgent examination" to which he referred on 24th February last year. I think that he was right not to give any special category of S.I.S.T.E.R.S. but I think that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), who is now a member of the Government, put a strong case in July 1964 for a new technological university on Tees-side, where there is a large concentration of population and of capital intensive industry, with no university institution, and there is a strong case for the Government considering a boost to technology with one completely new technological institution.
Secondly, we believe that the party opposite has sold the electorate a pup over medical education. The White Paper on the hospital building programme, and numerous speeches by the Minister of Health, speak of the increased entry of 250 students as "the equivalent of three new medical schools of average size". Everyone to whom I have spoken agrees that 120 is the smallest desirable medical school. Do the Government think that the provision of an extra 250 student places is adequate, bearing in mind that the numbers in general practice are likely to be 900 lower in 1967 than in 1963? There is real urgency here.
My last point on the universities is to draw attention—and here I am sure that the whole Committee will agree—to the great importance of the decisions which will be taken by the U.G.C. in connection with the forthcoming university quinquennium. In allocating funds for the next quinquennium, the U.G.C. will have to play a more positive rôle than ever before.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was right in the January debate to stress the need for the U.G.C. to concentrate resources and to rationalise the provision of costly equipment. I have come to feel that the growth of subject committees on the U.G.C. is right, so long as they do not have the effect of supressing new lines of development.
We shall also see a great increase in demand for post-graduate courses. A period of post-graduate study will be increasingly regarded as right preparation

for a growing number of highly responsible jobs.
I do not propose to speak at length about the Franks Report. It would merit a speech in itself, but one point on which I agree with the Franks Committee is on the need to increase both the number and proportion of post-graduate students.
So much for the universities. I now turn to the important White Paper which was published in May entitled "A Plan for Polytechnics and Other Colleges". I wish to say a few words about the Government's proposal, as stated in paragraph 28, to:
designate a limited number of Polytechnics as the main centres for the future development of full-time higher education within the Further Education system.
I begin with the very first words of the White Paper:
Much has changed since the White Paper of 1956 on Technical Education …
That is the under-statement of this Parliament so far when one sees what has happened over the past ten years. The number of full-time and sandwich students has increased from 67,000 in 1956 to 190,000 last year; all advanced level students have gone up from 47,000 in 1956 to 170,000 last year; and full-time and sandwich students at advanced level increased from 13,000 to 52,000 in the same period.
I mention these figures because it would be wrong to debate this subject without paying a tribute to Lord Eccles. Seldom has any initiative by any Minister proved so fruitful in such a short space of time as was the case following the White Paper of 1956. Also we should never forget the achievement of the colleges of advanced technology as pacemakers during this period.
I believe that the non-autonomous technical colleges, under whatever name, have a continuing major rôle to play in higher education. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am not one of those who want to see the whole of higher education swept into the university orbit. More nonsense is written and spoken about this—not least in another place possibly—than on any other current educational issue. There should be a continuing place for technical colleges concerned with learning but primarily institutions of professional training closer


to the world of work than the autonomous universities can ever be. I agree with the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) when he says that he would like these colleges to play some part in teacher-training as well. There is a strong case for that.
Coming to the White Paper itself, it is clearly right to concentrate expensive sources in fewer centres. It is right also to designate a limited number of polytechnics as main centres for the future development of full-time higher education. This is sensible economically and, one must add, also from the point of view of the institutions themselves. I have always sympathised with the posit on of those regional technical colleges which just failed to become colleges of advanced technology. Nevertheless, on the face of it, this White Paper is, certainly in parts, a little more dogmatic and schematic than I altogether like.
First, I feel that it would be wrong to draw a sharper dividing line between the polytechnics and the area colleges beneath them than ever existed in the old days between the colleges of advanced technology and the regional colleges. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel his way cautiously over the rundown of higher education in colleges other than the polytechnics. Obviously, the two most controversial paragraphs in the White Paper are paragraphs 21 and 22. under the heading,
Full-time higher education at other colleges.
I hope that he will go cautiously over this. Individual higher education courses of high quality are to be found in a number of colleges which would never claim to be polytechnics. An example given to me is the catering department at Torquay Technical College. People will ask, "If the Devon local authority still wishes to run this course in Torquay, which is highly regarded, why should the central Government bully the local education authority to send it off to a polytechnic in Plymouth?". That is the sort of issue which we shall have to face for the future.
Second, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not overlook the argument which has long been associated with the Association of Teachers in Technical Colleges,

that there may be a real advantage in having full-time and part-time students doing higher education side by side. I have always felt that there was substance in that.

Mr. E. Rowlands: The logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is not in favour of the binary system but against it. All that he has said suggests that when one begins to make a division between the technical colleges, the universities and the other institutions one creates as many anomalies as in the other system.

Sir E. Boyle: I am coming to that. I do not think that one need go to extremes in this. I am in favour of a spectrum of higher education institutions; and this applies also to institutions of higher education outside the university system. At one end of this spectrum—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree here—there may be strong arguments in individual cases for institutional links between a university and a non-autonomous college. To give one example, there is the University of Aston, well known to me—what was formerly the Birmingham C.A.T.—and the Birmingham College of Commerce, adjacent on one campus site. The same is true of the Manchester precinct.

Mr. Rowlands: And in Cardiff?

Sir E. Boyle: I shall not venture into Wales after what happened in some earlier debates. Much the same could be true in the future for Brighton University and the Brighton College of Technology.
At the other end of the spectrum, a college doing generally non-advanced work may nevertheless have at least one advanced course which justly enjoys high esteem over a wide area. In between, there must be scope for a good deal of concentration and rationalisation as courses become more costly. I recognise the case for an institutional link in some cases, but I do not accept that one should try to sweep the whole lot into the university orbit. Many of these colleges are much closer to industry, which has given them much more leadership than the universities have. At the other end, I do not want to see a sharp barrier between polytechnics and the area colleges, many of which, even if they could never become polytechnics, have, as I say, individual courses enjoying high esteem.
There must be scope for a good deal of concentration and rationalisation as courses become more costly, but I hope that the policy laid down in the White Paper will be pursued with due regard to present performance and local feeling as well as the interests of the part-time student no less than those of the full-time student.
I have tried to cut my speech to a fairly modest compass today because, although many of us will be pleased at the outcome, the earlier debate today has taken a considerable share of the time. We shall certainly need to debate education again in this long Session and when that time comes we shall, perhaps, have a more general discussion covering the state of play in secondary reorganisation and primary education. Indeed, the central theme of our next debate may well be the Plowden Council's Report.
It is artificial to cut up education in a debate like this. Our concern in this instance with university education and competition for university entry is clearly linked with the great concern which we feel on this side that there should be no fragmentation of sixth form teaching groups and that secondary reorganisation schemes should be soundly based. But we make no apology for raising this more limited debate today, and I end as I began with a reference to the universities.
It is a particularly worth-while objective in any democratic community to make higher education available to all those qualified and willing to pursue it. Quite apart from the aspects of professional training and learning, there is what I call the ferment of ideas in the university, giving more people the opportunity to partake of the intense intellectual life of the university, the intense meeting together of minds, which I regard as something of infinite value in itself in any community. But this objective set out in the Government's White Paper, following the Robbins Report, entails constant planning ahead and a determination to see that the necessary resources are provided in good time. We on this side believe that there is an overwhelming case for some increase in the university capital programme, for the reasons I have set out. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he will look at the matter

once again. Otherwise, we shall divide the Committee upon it.

4.46 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Anthony Crosland): As a result of other business, we have been allowed only just over two and a half hours for this debate. In these circumstances, I have some doubt whether it is right to have two Front Bench speakers from each side. But, as the Opposition have decided to have a second speech from the Front Bench, I have asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State to reply briefly on the subject of the White Paper on polytechnics. I shall confine myself almost entirely to the universities.
This is the sixth debate on education since I became the responsible Minister, and of these five have been on higher education. I regard this as somewhat unbalanced and I am glad, therefore, to hear from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) that we shall at some time in the future discuss questions affecting the schools. This is not the opportunity for a major speech on anyone's part covering the whole of higher education, partly for reasons of time and partly because we had a very long debate on the universities in January this year following the Report of the Estimates Committee. I shall confine myself to a few particular points raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, we are discussing this subject against the background of sustained and rapid expansion in all sectors of higher education and at a time when everybody has become accustomed to accepting the Robbins figures, or something more, as though these were a matter of conventional wisdom. It is worth reminding ourselves that the expansion which we are now achieving exceeds what was thought possible even four years ago.
The right hon. Gentleman will remember the debate on the universities which took place on 5th April, 1962, when the late Hugh Gaitskell gave both him and Mr. Henry Brooke, as he then was, a rough time. If we look back to what was expected in terms of expansion even then, we see how remarkable the actual achievement has been.
On that occasion in 1962, the right hon. Member for Handsworth said that


165,000 places in 1966–67—that is, this coming October, including the C.A.T.s
In my view … represents the fastest practicable rate of university expansion, and no one conversant with our universities has ever suggested that they could be expanded a a faster rate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1962 Vol. 657, c. 772.]
That was only four years ago. The actual outcome is that we expect the universities, this October, to have a student population of 189,000, that is, 2,000 above the Robbins target and many more thousands above the rate which the right hon. Gentleman said in April, 1962, was the fastest practicable rate of expansion.
As regards the colleges of education, the right hon. Gentleman said in April, 1962, that the total of students in 1966, this year, would rise to 48,000. The Robbins Report, more optimistic, set a target of 71,000. The actual figure we expect to reach this September is nearly 83,000, again something very much more considerable than was ever envisaged in the past.
Taking higher education in the further education system—that is, full-time and sandwich courses in technical colleges—in April, 1962, the right hon. Gentleman did not quote a target for this year. The Robbins Report set a target of 40,000 full-time students in this sector by 1966. In fact, we already have 47,000 full-time students in this sector.
Therefore, over the whole field of higher education and in each individual sector we have far exceeded the expectations set by the right hon. Gentleman and his Government in 1962 and comfortably exceeded the Robbins targets as well. This may be judged to be a very considerable expansion on the part of the whole of the higher education system.
Turning to the universities particularly, as the right hon. Gentleman did, we had from him this afternoon, and we have constantly from vice-chancellors, in their annual reports, complaints about the inadequacy in public expenditure on the universities. It is worth while now and again to get the question of university finance into some kind of reasonable perspective, because from reading some of these speeches one would never in fact gather what the actual figures are.
Ten years ago total U.G.C. expenditure on the universities was just over £37 million, which was about 6 per cent. of

all educational expenditure. Five years ago expenditure on the universities was £80 million, which was about 8 per cent. of all educational expenditure. This year U.G.C. expenditure on the universities is £207 million, or about 12½ per cent. of all educational spending.
Taking capital spending alone, we find that the rate of increase over the last decade has been larger for the universities than it has been in any other single sector of public expenditure. In other words, the universities have been obtaining a rising share of an educational budget that itself has been taking a rising share of national income. In these circumstances, I do not think that the universities can possibly say that they have been meanly treated by successive Governments.
However, I come now to the particular complaint that the right hon. Gentleman made this afternoon about the effects of the Chancellor's deferment measures last July. We have debated this before, so I shall deal with it only comparatively briefly. The effect of this deferment, as the right lion. Gentleman said, was that the universities will lose over a period of years £3 million as compared with the programme that they had been previously allocated.
It is worth considering what this programme was as compared with the £3 million which they are likely to lose. This was the university building programme announced by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) on 2nd September, 1964. There are two quite remarkable and interesting things about that date. First, it was only a few short weeks before the General Election. Secondly, it coincided with a period when I imagine it was known to Cabinet Ministers in the then Government that the balance of payments deficit was running at a very high figure. I do not know what figure they had in front of them, but by then it must have been a figure of £500 million to £600 million a year. In other words, this was an immediate pre-election programme announced at a time when they already knew that they were running into really severe balance of payments difficulties.
The fact is—I say this only because the right hon. Gentleman constantly came back to this point, so perhaps this had


better be said—that the programme was merely a paper promise. It was a cheque drawn against a large and rising overdraft. It was in line with a number of other promises about public expenditure which came in those grandiose closing days of the then Conservative Government and meant, in fact, practically nothing in relation to the actual economic situation.
I would imagine that some subconscious recognition of the looming dangers if the Conservatives were to have got back must have been in the mind of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, because his statement on this subject—here I come to the point as to whether the figures for the second and third years were provisional or not—contained this sentence:
the figures for the second and third years … will be subject to review at that time in the light of the prospective economic situation and of other claims on the construction industry.
This was not mentioned by the right hon. Member for Handsworth. He correctly pointed out that they would be reconsidered according to the terms of this statement in the light of the U.G.C's advice on the capital position of the universities. But this statement also includes the provision that the second and third years would
be subject to review … in the light of the prospective economic situation".

The prospective economic situation turned out to be what it was, what has been again and again debated in the House of Commons, and what I do not want to debate this afternoon.
The only surprising thing about this, considering this proviso and considering what the economic situation was beginning to look like in September, 1964, is that apparently the universities took this paper promise as representing some absolutely firm commitment which was certain to be carried out in practice. It is surprising that none of the high-powered economists, by whom presumably vice-chancellors are surrounded, ever pointed out to them just what the dangers were. Those are the circumstances of this programme of which £3 million has been deferred.
Against that background how have the universities fared?

Sir E. Boyle: The right hon. Gentleman is honestly mistaken if he supposes that the programmes which have been cut by the present Government were not announced until September. The programmes announced in September were the programmes for the years following April, 1966. The programmes for 1964 and for the 15 months 1965 to April, 1966—in other words, the programmes vital to the short-term Robbins expansion—were all announced well before the summer of 1964. I will, before my hon. Friend winds up, look up the exact date.

Mr. Crosland: No doubt the programmes were announced in two halves before then, but it does not alter the point I am making that the long-term programme, which is what the universities are very much concerned with, was this one announced on 2nd September, 1964. That was the programme, for example, which covered 1968 and 1969 and which is now a matter of acute concern to the universities. Therefore, I will not reiterate the point that this programme was announced at a time when it was already clear that the country was running into the most serious balance of payments difficulties, and account should have been taken of this by any realistic people.
What we have attempted to do, as the Committee knows—we have discussed this before during the last few months—is to reconstruct this programme following the deferment as rapidly and as generously as possible. The consequence of this reconstruction is that the universities, on our present programme, will lose some £3 million out of a total of over £140 million spread over four years. I do not think that they can maintain, given the economic situation, that this was a harsh, unjust and intolerable cut to fall on them. Other parts of public expenditure also had to suffer in this situation and I do not think that the universities can claim that they were picked on, or that they have been unduly harshly dealt with.
When discussing the question of university building programmes and university finance generally there are a number of things which tend to get forgotten or or least not to get brought clearly enough out into the open. One is that, in addition to the U.G.C. expenditure—those are the figures I was quoting earlier—the


expenditure of the research councils has been growing at a very rapid rate, at about 13 per cent. in this current year, despite the economic situation. A significant proportion of this flows through the research councils to the universities.
It is also sometimes forgotten, or at any rate not mentioned, that, again despite the economic situation, the Government announced last December that we accepted the broad principle of the Flower; Report, as a result of which about £20 million will go to the universities over a period of six years for new university computers, equipment, buildings and operating costs. I am very pleased to be able to announce this afternoon that Professor Flowers has accepted my invitation to become Chairman of the Computer Board, the establishment of which was recommended in that Report.
It is also worth bearing in mind, when considering the total picture of university finance and building, that they, unlike other parts of the education system, are extremely well placed—and I am delighted that they are—to attract funds, both current and capital, from industry and foundations. My attitude to this is very simple: good luck to them. If they can get it, I am delighted.
Substantial additional sums of income, both current and capital, tend to be more easily available to the universities, and on a considerably larger scale, than to other parts of the higher education system and, still more, of course, to the schools as a whole. We all know from the recent Press reports that in some cases these capital grants can amount to very large sums of money. The Press was full last week of one example and it is not the only one.
Many new universities have attracted considerable grants and I am delighted that they should be able to do so. But when we are considering university finance and buildings we must make some allowance for this when comparing the universities with other parts of the education system. I know that the universities would like more, and, of course, we should all like to give them more. Especially am I extremely conscious of the severe pressure which is now being exerted on them by the present building

cost limits and I am actively considering this matter.
I am also very conscious of the point to which the right hon. Gentleman drew attention—the danger that there may be to our older provincial universities which, if one may put it so, might rather lose out in the present situation. This is a serious danger which we all recognise. To some extent, however, this is the price we pay for having decided—it was not my decision, but the previous Government's—to create a university system with no fewer than 43 universities—a very considerably larger number than most countries have of comparable population. At any rate, on this aspect I strongly agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
But, having considered all these points, one must say that the universities have not been badly treated, given the very large increase in spending that I have described; given the large capital programmes that they have been allocated under the reconstituted programme; given the general national economic situation, which is the background to all these matters; given the extreme pressure also on other parts of the education system which also have a claim for additional resources that are available; and given the fact that, in our judgment, the present allocations will enable the universities at least to achieve the Robbins targets.
As I say, they have not been unduly harshly treated and I do not take at face value the suggestion sometimes made by vice-chancellors—and I understand why they make it—that confidence in the universities and the morale in them is at a low ebb. That is not what I find when I go round the universities. Naturally, it is the job of vice-chancellors to make their case as strongly as they can, but when I talk with staff and students I find little sign of this alleged low morale. On the contrary, I find these places full of the most bustling activity, a great deal of building and of confidence in the future.
Here, perhaps I may refer to what the right hon. Gentleman rightly said in a recent speech—that we tend in this kind of discussion to suffer from "communal melancholia". This applies in particular to the universities when speaking of their own problems. Obviously,


one wishes that there were more time to debate and develop other points about the universities, but I shall only mention some of the things going on in our universities that I find extremely exciting.
There is an increasing involvement by the universities with the non-university world of government and industry. This is very marked all over the country. The only example I will quote is the encouraging involvement of the universities in regional planning. Three of the regional economic planning councils have university chairmen and I think that in practically every one of the regions the universities are doing a great deal of work for the councils.

Mr. Jack Ashley: But is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most important regions, North Staffordshire, is isolated from other regions and that the fact that it does not have a college with full technical studies has created deep distress and concern? Will he bear this concern in mind before making a final and irrevocable decision on the issue?

Mr. Crosland: I will bear my hon. Friend's concern in mind on this, and it comes as no surprise that there might be some complaints from that area. Indeed, they were rather what we expected.
As I was saying, there is increasing involvement in outside activities, both Governmental and industrial, by the universities and a new willingness on their part to discuss what their entrance procedures should be. The Franks Report highlighted this problem and the interest of the universities is symbolised by the Standing Conference that the vice-chancellors have set up. With the appointment of Mr. Alan Bullock—which the Committee will welcome—as Chairman of the Schools Council, the dialogue between the schools and the universities will become closer in future.
It is striking, wherever one looks, to see the increased attention given to efficiency and productivity. We now have almost a complete university at York built with one the industrialised building systems—"C.L.A.S.P."—and we have the exciting experiment in industrialised building at Bath. The use of university buildings is a matter of concern to vice-

chancellors, and it is interesting to see that they have set up a special committee to consider how O. & M. methods might be applied to universities and in two regions—Scotland and the North-East—co-operative experiments in the use of O. & M. are about to take place. The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned postgraduate studies and things are going ahead rapidly here. The national picture shows that we are ahead of the Robbins targets for postgraduate students.
The most striking development in the U.G.C.'s activities is the decision of the Committee substantially to reorganise itself into subject groups. We might find this to be a major reform of the Committee. I am certain that it is a reform that will make much easier what the right hon. Gentleman drew attention to—the need to have some kind of rationalisation of courses when we have 43 universities. Clearly, not all can be equally pre-eminent in every single subject from ancient Greek to nuclear physics.
In dealing with the question of students' rights, we are seeing a welcome development in the terms of the universities' attitude to their students. We have been able—or, to be more exact, the Privy Council has been able—to give some help in this direction by encouraging new universities when having their new charters approved, to insert into them certain important provisions for safeguarding students' rights. This is an important and necessary development.
Against this background of rapid change and development in the universities, what is the Government's objective? First, it is to ensure the necessary resources for expansion. I hope I have shown that these resources will be there. Secondly, it is necessary for the Government to take a view of the needs not only of the universities but of higher education as a whole and not to look at the one divorced from the other. One of the ironies of the discussion of the binary policy is that a number of those who strongly attacked the policy supported the recommendation of the Robbins Committee that universities should be hived off to another Ministry, where they would, in fact, have been divorced in responsibility both from the colleges of education and the technical colleges. That would not have been a right thing


to do and it was, of course, rejected by the last Government.
It is extremely important to have an overall view of all higher education. One ands this need when discussing broad national requirements such as the need to increase management education, the output of town planners and architects for example. One cannot settle this kind of question except by looking at all aspects of the system if we are to ensure something like fair shares between the universities and non-university sectors. For example, the U.G.C. has established cost limits common to universities and colleges of education and is now working on trying to find common cost limits for non-residential accommodation which will apply to all sectors of higher education. This is an important and encouraging development.
There is one essential point where one must take some total view, and it is when discussing the numbers whom we wish to enter higher education, say, ten years ahead; how the numbers should be distributed among universities, colleges of education and the technical colleges. We cannot have an intelligent policy for the future of higher education if we divorce any of these sectors from each other. I have been very concerned at the absence since the Robbins Report of any systematic analysis going on anywhere in the country both as to the total numbers thought likely to be, in the famous phrase, "qualified by ability and attainment" to enter higher education and, even more important, by the absence of any serious consideration as to which sector of higher education they should most desirably enter, which sector should be expanded relatively as compared with the others.
One of the things which we are now doing in my Department is establishing a long-term planning division one of whose functions—only one, I hope—will be to try to keep Robbins up to date. This phrase has been used in the Committee before when it has been said 'low terribly important it is to keep the Robbins figures and projections up to date. 'The only place where this can be done is in the Department and it will be one of the functions of the new planning division which we are in process of setting up.
What we are all committed to in this Committee is expansion, and inevitably expansion produces great strains on those who have to undertake the burden. It is obvious enough that the strain under which the universities suffer is not confined to the universities, but is felt by all parts of the education system and it must be if we are to have a progressive and expanding and dynamic society. In such a society, with rising standards and rising numbers, this strain will be felt at all points and will be with us for as far ahead as we can see.
My own view about higher education is that we have made the resources available for this challenge of rising numbers and rising standards to be met. On this there is no difference between us—that the object of the entire exercise is that steadily over the years we should enable a rising proportion of our younger generation to enter higher education and derive benefit from it.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): In view of the limited time at our disposal, I ask hon. Members to keep their speeches as short as possible.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. John Cordle: I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Irving, and I promise you that I shall keep my remarks brief in view of the short time allocated to this debate. I can promise you that I shall confine myself to my notes and that my speech will take only six minutes.
In the Appendix to the White Paper the needs of the Southern Area have been only partially met by the creation of Portsmouth and Oxford as polytechnics. There is a very large area of West Hampshire, South Wiltshire and the County of Dorset, with its natural centre in Bournemouth, which is not catered for in the scheme for the provision of higher education facilities by a polytechnic. With a catchment area population of more than 620,000 and a growth rate of 10 per cent., it seems unreasonable that the nearest designated polytechnics are more than 50 miles by road from Bournemouth. In parentheses, Bournemouth is 51, Bristol, 82, Oxford 94 and Plymouth 124 miles away.
Owing to the very successful record of the College of Technology in Bournemouth, there is a very serious shortage


of accommodation and a pressing need for new buildings. Both staff and equipment are of a very high calibre and competent to deal with polytechnic level work and it would be a tragedy if this fine organisation were dispersed. On the other hand, the Bournemouth area could easily provide residential accommodation for any number of students at reasonable cost.
Bournemouth College of Technology has for many years provided a comprehensive range of full-time and part-time courses of either degree or below-degree level to meet the requirements of the Government's scientific establishments, including the Atomic Energy Authority, and the extending engineering, electronic and computer industries, as well as commerce and the professions and industry's vital need for the training of technologists and technicians. In fact, Bournemouth College of Technology is already running highly successful full-time degree and final professional examinations which are not likely to be discontinued. Moreover, the concentration of scientific research and the scope of the large industrial development, especially in the chemical, electronics, computer and engineering industries, together with excellent additional facilities and amenities, make Bournemouth an ideal choice for one of the new universities. Close intercourse between university, college of technology, college of art, research establishments and industry would be of inestimable value to all concerned.
According to the White Paper, 50 per cent. of the proposed polytechnics will be situated in towns which have an existing university. This can be seen from paragraph 12 on page 5 of the White Paper. It refers to "the availability of lodgings", yet it is clear already in many university towns and cities that lodgings are at a premium and that expansion of polytechnics would exacerbate this situation.
It is here that the seaside resorts, whose accommodation is used intensively during the summer vacation, but which have a surplus of lodgings at other times of the year, could come into their own. The emphasis placed on siting the proposed polytechnics in existing industrial centres, while no doubt making sense in the short term, could have a longer-term unfortunate effect, since there will probably

be a period of ten years before any further polytechnics are designated. Thus, the elite of higher education, the universities and polytechnics, will be in the industrialised areas, often both in the same town, and this may well be a factor in drawing brighter young people away from other areas, a problem which may already be arising in Bournemouth. We must think ahead so that imbalances in population ages and skills which already exist are not made worse.
I welcome the considerable extension of higher education which there has been in the past 20 years. I regard the brains of our youth as part of the capital assets of our country which must not be squandered by neglect. I am glad that it has been found possible to establish new universities in various parts of the country—in some cases very near to existing universities and often with special emphasis because of the local availability of experienced workers and opportunity and research. For this reason I would especially urge the suitability of Bournemouth where an enlightened attitude to the arts has been cultivated alongside highly technical research work of various kinds. The fact that many boarding houses would welcome students for three regular terms a year in out-of-season months makes Bournemouth especially suitable for a new university for Wessex, and the presence of many retired folk with wide experience and excellent qualifications adds to the cultural attractiveness of the town.
However, may I conclude with one word of caution? Many of us are concerned about reports which come from time to time of moral standards which have been tolerated in certain universities. I remember a lady warden complaining that her work was complicated by the difficulty of keeping students out of each other's beds. Disclosures about drug taking and suicides cause alarm at a time when so much of the nation's resources are being spent on education.
Is it too much to ask that university and college authorities should exercise something of parental oversight over these adolescents who are committed to their care? Surely that is part of their duty to both parents and the State.

Mr. E. Rowlands: As a recent warden of a hall of residence of a university, may


I tell the hon. Gentleman that we keep general parental case over our students?

Mr. Cordle: I am sure that that will be welcome news.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: I have no territorial claims to make for the North-East and I am satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's statement on polytechnics. I want to discuss very briefly the general aspect of higher education, and I would like to tell the Secretary of State that we appreciate that the great difficulty with educational priorities is that no one is satisfied with the expenditure on education. I believe that it ought to have a far greater priority than it has. I appreciate the figures which he has given and the very strong case that he has made out, but because I believe that education is fundamental to the sort of social change that is essential to modern society, I think we ought to have an even bigger priority accorded to education, and I assure him that he will have the support of his hon. Friends in pressing the case even harder with the powers that be.
Everyone shares in the pleasure of hearing the announcement of the expansion of higher education, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that we want to go even faster. If I may coin a phrase, I would say that we believe in expansion and in high priority for education because we want to give equal opportunity to all of our youngsters to become equal citizens. The education service is the key to such opportunity. When one thinks of all the rejection that goes on in education, at the way in which our youngsters are inhibited because of the lack of opportunity, it is no wonder that we have so many misfits, youngsters looking for kicks in their leisure time because of all of the opportunities which they have been denied through educational rejection.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the very bold decisions that he has made in spite of the restricting factors of the economic situation and the continuing demands upon every section of education. I applaud his White Paper on the polytechnics, about which I shall have something to say later. One of the difficulties in discussing universities is that we tend to generalise, and I hope that those who read our criticisms will

understand the difficulty under which we work when we place them all in the same category. So far as the non-autonomous sector is concerned, the difficulty is that we talk to them and they cannot understand that the same pressure is being put upon the university sector as is being put upon their sector in order to increase productivity.
There is a widespread belief in technical colleges, colleges of further education and educational institutions that in some way or other the universities are getting away with it. I do not accept this, because I happen to know the facts, and I know that great pressure is also being put upon the universities. Even so, there is this widespread impression, and the Department has a job to do to make sure that there is no discrimination in the pressure that is brought to bear to maintain extra productivity in all sectors of higher education. In the new circular on polytechnics, I would summarise the aim of higher education as being to offer comprehensive facilities within reasonable access of students whether full-time, part-time or undertaking a sandwich course.
We know that resources are stretched to the limit, whether teaching resources, supply of equipment, buildings and so on. It is surely common sense to seek greater concentration of full-time higher education. We cannot afford overlapping and duplicating with the limited resources at our disposal. I would reinforce the words of the right hon. Gentleman about the need for flexibility. There is undoubted apprehension in many places which have been left out of the lists of provisional polytechnics among the staff and the governing bodies. I hope that we shall continue to have flexibility of entrance qualifications to the various courses. We have to remember that further education has suffered somewhat because of the constant desire on the part of staffs and principals particularly to shed low-level work and to be rather reluctant about taking part-time students. The result is that some further education colleges have to take far too big a proportion of part-timers. It is difficult to achieve a real community life, leading to personal development, where there is not a hard core of full-time students.
I hope that in the application of the principles of the Circular the Secretary


of State will continue to be very flexible and will not draw severe lines. We must get away from the ladder principle in higher education. The very close links which the technical colleges have with industry, the professions and commerce are very valuable. I sometimes get very anxious when I hear people talking, at various conferences, about the technical colleges and their close links with industry. It is not a crime to pursue courses of vocational content which incorporate a training element. These are just as educationally desirable as other courses. Certainly they are in no way educationally inferior.
There is nothing degrading about preparing oneself to earn a living, and it is about time that we reminded folk of that when they talk such airy-fairy stuff about higher education. Some remarkable figures have been given this afternoon. In a reply in this House three weeks ago it was said that the current grants from public funds for universities totalled £224 million. This is a tremendous sum by any standards, and, as the Secretary of State has reminded us, they are claiming an increasing proportion of educational expenditure.
I want to suggest that universities should justify themselves a little more to the public and that they should be subjected more to public scrutiny. I know that this leads to much misunderstanding and needless suspicion, but it is quite obvious that when such a sum of public money is involved the public have certain rights and responsibilities. The universities must make their own case. I have not heard of anyone who would want to interfere in any way with academic freedom of universities. We are not trying to dominate or to interfere, but that does not mean that there is not a case for public accountability and for the universities justifying themselves.
Very briefly, I want to mention one or two matters that have concerned me as I have talked to university students and visited various universities. The first is failure rates. There is no doubt that some universities have preconceieved notions of what the failure rate should be. Far too many of our intelligent youngsters capable of getting a good degree are thrown out of university. Sometimes this is because of the lack of

individual attention paid to students. But the high failure rate which we have in certain faculties in certain universities is a serious waste of precious teaching time and a criminal waste of scarce resources. It is also very harmful to the individuals concened. Far too many good students are rejected, not because they are incapable of getting a good degree, but because the course available is not the right course for them and sometimes there is not enough flexibility to enable them to change their course after the have started their university career.
There is great scope here for fresh attitudes in certain faculties in some universities. Many would profit from a serious investigation into teaching methods and traditions. I welcome very much the progress being made. I know that there are vice-chancellors and university staffs who welcome the new trends, and I would commend them to those who have been rather tardy about revising their attitude.
I read a speech in the Listener not long ago by a university teacher who put forward a point of view which I know is shared by many university teachers. He placed his first responsibility and first obligation to his subject. He said:
This overrides all my other loyalties and responsibilities.
Does it? There are many immoral and inhuman pursuits which have been fostered and practised in the sacred name of research and the search after knowledge for its own sake.
Those whom we teach are important. Human qualities are just as important as the subject, perhaps more important. I think that they should be paramount. I sometimes become anxious when I talk to people about the value of research. Of course, research is valuable, although we should justify what we are doing because a good deal passes under the name of research which would take some justifying in the light of the limited resources available.
There are universities which claim to pursue learning for learning's sake. I suggest that they have not always been in the van of progress. The revolutionary ideas have not always found the greatest favour in the universities. Some universities have not distinguished themselves in their attitude to the entry of women into


higher education or in their reactions to suggestions about admissions. What I am convinced about is that both sectors—that is, what we call the autonomous sector and the public sector—have a great deal to give each other and to teach each other. The autonomous sector could do with much more public accountability and public scrutiny. At the other end, the public sector—certain technical colleges, and so on—should have rather more autonomy. There should be no question of interference in the day-to-day running of the college and the curriculum, and so on. A great deal can be done in exchanging ideas and facilities.
As I see it, the priorities given by the Secretary of State should be reinforced by the House. We are proceeding along the right lines. Public education is always a question of priorities. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle) talked about the meals subsidy. It is true that we can select various things in isolation and ask whether we are justified in giving them the priority which they get because it means that other things have to be held back.
We have made a mistake in recent years in pretending that we can do everything at the same time. I am glad that we have a Secretary of State who is prepared consciously and deliberately to make decisions on priorities. They may be unpopular, but, because I believe that they are in the interests of the youngsters of the country, and because I believe that we are getting a balanced progress in education, particularly in higher education, which does so much to enhance the character and personality of the individual, I am sure that my right hon. Friend can count on our support, especially in his demand that education should have an even bigger share of the national cake.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) has said, but he will forgive me if I do not take up his remarks in detail because I want fairly shortly to put to the Minister o' State one or two questions about the activities of the universities in science and technology, and particularly the need for expansion there. For that reason, I

welcome what the Secretary of State said about the appointment of Professor Flowers as Chairman of the Computer Board which the right hon. Gentleman announced. I am on the governing body of the Imperial College of Science, and. therefore, I speak from that point of view.
Before I go into that matter, I should like to comment on what the Secretary of State said about the universities and their share of the national income and whether-they have a right to feel uneasy about the present position. He is rather inclined to brush aside their anxieties. They exist not only in the breasts of vice-chancellors. Whether they will be convinced about his theory that the present economic situation is all due to the last Government, the fact remains that people are worried about whether the present rate of expansion will meet the Robbins target. That is the real issue. No doubt other hon. Members will refer to it.
Many people in the universities are worried, too, about growing interference with their finances and financial independence. I am not sure that we should exaggerate this. I have read the speech of Sir Ifor Evans condemning what he calls "the surrender to Government finance". Over two-thirds of universities' income comes from State resources. I do not think that we should take this too seriously, but I should like to see a reduction made in the questionnaires that they have to answer at short notice, particularly when asked to "quantify" their activities. The universities should be dedicated to study with the minimum of interference, but I cannot wholly accept that they should be entirely independent in matters of finance, however nostalgic that may be.
As I say, I wish to relate my remarks to science and technology and, in particular, to draw the attention of the Minister of State to our industrial future in this connection. I take, first, the University of Oxford, on which there was recently a good article by Mr. Hutchins of the Education Department. At Oxford last year, 60 of the 120 men who took the honours degree in chemistry were working for research degrees. Of those 60, 47 went into industry and 13 into teaching. The national figures are about the same. This presents us with a real problem, because there is a tremendous shortage of


engineers, few of whom do university research and we have four times as many post-graduate chemists as engineers.
In so far as we all aim to tie up the activities of the universities with industry, may I ask what work is being done to get the priorities right? Engineering should not be left to industry and Government establishments. The universities should take a fuller part in teaching engineering by interchanges with industry. University research in pure science is more attractive to many young people because it is felt to offer "more freedom" than industry. We notice that at Imperial College, and I am told that the same is true of Oxford. If pure science gets overstocked with the best brains, the engineering departments will go short. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman if he will comment on what I have just said and tell us what is being done.
If the Robbins targets are to be reached, as we all hope they will be—it depends very much on how the economic policy of the Government solves the difficult situation that we are in—we shall need a three-fold increase in university graduate studies in science and technology. At least, that is the calculation which I have been told. Therefore, this expansion at the moment clearly cannot be sufficient to do that under the present programme.
When talking about industry and the universities, we are always told of the example of the United States, where clearly there is a much closer relationship between the universities and research in industry. Our research effort is a comparatively small one. I remember Lord Bowden saying that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology does more applied research than all the British universities put together. That does not mean that we cannot produce research of good quality, but we have to spend more money on it. In so far as it is true that there must be a threefold improvement and increase in postgraduate studies, there must be more money, and there is not enough now.
Talking of Lord Bowden, in connection with pure science and the need for dedicated men, he recalls that, in the early 'thirties when he was working with Lord Rutherford, the total budget was £2,500

a year, and Lord Rutherford used to say to him, "We have no money to spend, so we shall have to think." I know that it is an exaggeration to say now, when we have developed nuclear physics, that we should put things into reverse in any way in regard to those principles. But it would be a good thing if we did more to train the best minds. Lord Rutherford believed that his discoveries would be of no economic or political importance, and he died thinking that, yet the Cavendish Laboratory today is able to spend £300,000 a year.
Therefore, I plead for a degree of free enterprise in the universities, particularly in scientific and technological research, and for a minimum of interference. If the capital funds at the disposal of the University Grants Committee are inadequate and financial control grows, we shall not see the same original results that we have seen in the past. We have to get the right priorities and, while I welcome much that the Secretary of State said, particularly about computers, I think that he is being a little over-optimistic about the feelings of the universities in regard to future expansion.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: The debate began, as such debates must begin, with the Robbins Report—that classic State document on the subject of higher education. I am glad that both sides of the House have accepted the Robbins principle that all young persons qualified by ability and attendance to pursue a full-time course of higher education should have the opportunity to do so.
I want to look quickly, not backwards but forward, to the period beyond 1968 and to what will happen to university places in the period 1968–74. The National Plan envisages acceptance of the Robbins figure of 219,000 places in 1974, which is only 21,000 over the 1967–68 target which we now all confidently expect to be reached. That represents an 11 per cent. increase in the number of university places in about six years.
On the statistics provided by the Department of Education and Science in a fascinating projection published in 1964 and relating to the year 1963, it appears that the increase in demand is likely to be of the order of 23 per cent. in that period. I will not weary the House with the


details, which can be looked up and checked. I assure hon. Members that those figures show—and nothing has happened since then to modify them—that between 1968 and 1974 there will be something like an increase of 23 per cent. in the number of candidates with good qualifications for admission to universities. In that time, we have envisaged an increase in the number of places of only 11 per cent.; so that it appears that the competition for university entry in that period will be very much more intensified if we stand pat on the Robbins figure.
We all know what the results of that intensification will be. It will result ha pressure on sixth forms for specialisation and a distortion of the liberalisation of sixth forms which we would all very much like to see. A further consequence which may flow if we stand pat on the target for 1973–74 is that the number of 21,000 additional places will be spread over a period of six years and over some 40-odd instititutions.
It is quite clear that the major part of the expansion must occur, quite rightly, in the new universities and in the colleges of advanced technology which have recently achieved university status. That means that the older civic universities in particular may be faced with an extended period of years in which their student numbers do not rise at all. That can only mean that they will have no claims to additional staff and no claims to academic developments in terms of new courses or new departments.
If that occurs, and I hope that it will not, I would submit that it will not have a good effect on the morale of a university whose expansion is brought to a halt. I am not saying that the position will necessarily arise, but on the figures in the projections that we have it is undoubtedly true that there will be a halt to expansion in certain parts of the university sector in the six years from 1968 to 1974.
The situation outside the universities presents a slightly different picture. The work paper on polytechnics does not accept the Robbins figure of 41,000 students by 1973–74. The figure has been raised to 70,000, and that 70,000 is to be achieved not by 1973–74 but by 1969–70; in other words, there has been a 75 per cent. increase in the numbers planned in half the period of time

originally envisaged. Obviously there will have to be a change of balance between the expansion rate in the university sector and the rate in the non-university sector of higher education.
I wonder whether that reflects the thinking which lay behind the Woolwich speech and the so-called binary system. It is a shade ironic that the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions, who raced to embrace the Woolwich speech as its charter of freedom, has now had the binary knife applied to its own sector of higher education and finds that under the system of polytechnics there will be two sectors outside the universities. If these plans come to fruition it means that we are moving towards not a dual system but a tripartite system of higher education, with three separate sectors. I hope that it will not arise. I hope that the flexibility which has been pleaded for from both sides of the House will continue to exist and that we shall not have developing an 18-plus more vicious and more unpleasant than the old 11-plus. I think that the trends which might stem from the White Paper need to be carefully watched, and that we must have a sustained and careful debate on the possible consequences of it.
With regard to the geographical distribution of the proposed polytechnics, I find it odd that none is proposed for the East Riding, the North Riding, Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdon, Suffolk and Norfolk. Almost the whole of the eastern part of England is excluded from any proposed polytechnic under this scheme, and I hope that this aspect of the geographical location will receive a little further scrutiny.
I want to touch on three points with regard to the internal organisation of the universities themselves, because we have had a certain amount of, not exactly criticism, but suggestion, that the accountability of the universities is not perhaps all that it ought to be. I suggest that there are three spheres in which the universities should be a little more forthcoming on this question of public accountability.
I have been a little disappointed at the attitude of some of my former academic colleagues, at the niggling and petulant manner in which they have regarded the cost analysis now being carried out by the University Grants Committee. I think


that this petulance is unjustified. I think that the universities will find that this cost analysis, though it may be too complicated at the moment, and might need modification, will be valuable to them—and will be valuable internally to each separate institution—as a check that they have achieved the right balance between the various aspects of their work and the work of the different faculties. I hope that the attitude to this cost analysis will be revised, and that the universities will be more forthcoming.
Secondly, I should like to see more attention paid to the question of staff-student ratios. The Fifth Report of the Estimates Committee produced some astonishing variations in staff-student ratios for the same faculties in different universities. One accepts that different faculties may justifiably have different staff-student ratios one from the other. For instance, medicine will have a different ratio from that for the arts or social sciences, but what makes me uneasy is the wide variation in staff-student ratios in the same faculties in different universities.
In science, one university has a staff-student ratio of 1 to 9·9, and another 1 to 4·5. In the arts there are variations from 1 to 11·5, to 1 to 7·3. In the social sciences there are variations from 1 to 14·9 to 1 to 7·7. Academic manpower is expensive and scarce, and it is very important—and I am sure that the universities recognise this—that the public should be persuaded that this manpower is being used to the fullest possible advantage.
One has only to demonstrate this arithmetically to see how important it is. If there is an institution with 1,000 academic staff, and one accepts a ratio of 1 to 7, 7,000 students can be taught there. If, however, one accepts a ratio of 1 to 8, 8,000 students can be taught there. That means an extra 1,000 students can be taught with the same manpower, and at the same cost. I am not arguing for either of these figures. I am not saying that 1 to 7, or 1 to 8, is the right figure, or, indeed, that it is possible to have a one for all the various faculties, but I think that the wide discrepancies thrown up in the Estimates Committee's Report need further investigation, and that the universities would be wise to look into this matter themselves.
Thirdly, I think that there is considerable scope for careful analysis and study of the use of existing buildings. Some months ago I tried to do a little exercise into the use of classroom places, and the number of classroom places required for a given number of students. I assumed, rather airily, that the U.G.C. would have some figure of how many classroom places were required for a given population of students. I was told that no such figure existed.
This is a complicated calculation because in a university there may be as many as 400 to 500 students in a class, or as few as half a dozen, and there are enormous complications of timetable, but I do not believe that it is beyond the mathematical expertise of universities, aided perhaps by the use of computers, to calculate what number of classroom places there ought to be for a given student population, allowing for differences in subjects and faculties.
I am not concerned with laboratories. Laboratory places are a more special consideration. I am concerned simply with the provision of classroom places, and no careful study seems to have been made of requirements. These places not only cost considerable capital sums, but they have to be cleaned, heated, lit, and maintained, and the business of cleaning, lighting and maintenance in a modern university is an enormously expensive one, and growing in costliness all the time.
Those are the three things in respect of which the universities could well make closer and more careful investigations without any threat to their academic freedom, without any suggestion of interference from outside. I believe that the results of such investigations would be very valuable to the universities themselves, and would help to justify their expenditure, in so far as it needs justification, to the public.
I have not in this short debate touched on fundamental matters of higher education. There is not time for this, and I am sure that there are other hon. Members better qualified than I am to discuss the deeper problems of universities and technical colleges.
I believe that, whatever the difficulties, there is a greater feeling of social responsibility in the universities today than ever


before, that corporately and as individuals the academic world is conscious of its responsibility to the larger community, and that it is only too anxious to play a full part, and to help, in dealing with our national problems.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee (Woking-ham): Other hon. Members have been so admirably brief that I shall do my best in a few moments to comment on only two matters. The first arises out of a comment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), who talked about the academic excitements which arise when persons are gathered together in a university. I want to refer to that and to make a comment which diverges from the view held by both Front Benches.
If I were trying to put my finger on the greatest problem that we have in training those who will teach. I would say that it was their status, or what they believe to be their status, and I would go on from there to look very closely at the way in which we organise our colleges of education with reference to the links which they have with the universities.
I believe that this aspect of the so-called binery system—itself a perfectly dreadful word—is wrong. We build new colleges in close proximity to universities. We increasingly allow students at those colleges to take a degree course. We require them to be there for three years. I am certain that the logical consequence of this thought is that the colleges of education should be integral parts of the universities, and that both major parties were wrong when they decided to leave them substantially under the authority and control of the local education authorities.
Nobody feels more strongly than I about the value of local connections with education. Nobody feels more strongly than I, for example, about the value of local authority representation on the boards of primary and secondary schools. But I do not believe that the same considerations apply to colleges of education. I do not believe, for example, that the governors of such institutions have to deride the kind of very local, personal matters which, in the experience of us all, are the concern of the governors of primary and secondary schools; indeed,

the students with which they are concerned are drawn from a far wider area, and many of the small, domestic matters upon which very valuable advice is given by the governors of primary or secondary schools do not arise in respect of colleges of education. I do not expect that individual regions of the country feel a sense of belonging to a college of education in the same way as they do to local primary and secondary schools.
In consequence, I am sure that we have missed an opportunity of raising the status of those who are being trained to be teachers and who are undertaking courses fully as wide and fully as important as those of any modern university, but who are denied the additional status of having been to such places of learning. I want to place this firmly on the record my own belief—if necessary as the only Member who is out of step with everybody else; no, I am delighted to find some fellow rebels on the Benches opposite.
If I were asked what was the most important development in higher education generally in the years since the war, I would say that it was the broadening social base from which students of all kinds are drawn. No longer is the word "university" considered only in a few homes, comparative to the population; rightly and properly, it is an institution which enters into the lives and homes of people who would never have considered the possibility a few years ago. Increasingly today it applies to higher forms of further and higher education.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth has rightly drawn attention to the fact that increasing numbers of our young people will be undertaking post-graduate work. If that is the case, considerable problems will arise in connection with the subject of grants for post-graduate work. Therefore I want to confine my remarks exclusively to grants for undergraduate work. I am profoundly concerned about the talk that I have heard to the effect that the system of grants for undergraduates is under review and that active consideration is being given to making loans instead of grants. I am sure that the country would be making a fundamental mistake, at least in respect of undergraduates, if the clock were to be put back and a system of loans rather than grants were instituted for students.
The people who would be most affected would be those to whom I have referred, into whose homes higher education generally, and the universities in particular, have moved with increasing force. The fact is that if daddy lives at St. George's Hill, Weybridge, which is a perfectly honourable place to live, daddy will repay the loan; but if daddy lives in a local council house, which is an equally honourable place to live, and earns his livelihood by working for the local council, and his fifth son has got a place at a university, daddy cannot repay the loan. The families whom we would not want to penalise will be penalised by a system of loans.
I hope that the Minister of State will be able to reply to my next point. I am a lawyer, and I submit that every lawyer always looks at the enforcement of any law. It lies within the competence of the Committee to pass any law, but lawyers always look at the enforcement of the law, and I believe that a system of loans would be honourably respected, although bitterly resented, by most students if it turned out to be the wish of the Committee, and then dishonourably ignored by a minority, in respect of whom it would physically not be possible to enforce the recovery of the loan.
I ask the Committee to consider the position of a man who emigrates for a long or short period, or the impossibility literally of extracting blood from a stone. If the former student has not got the money there is no power by which any court or this House can extract it from him. Very strong resentment would be caused by the contrast between the honourable student who observed his obligations and the few students who did not. It would be a resentment out of all proportion to the numbers involved.
In accordance with the general self-denying ordinance of the debate, I merely record the fact that this is the moment when we must warn the Minister of State, in no uncertain terms, that if he seeks to reorganise the present system of undergraduate grants and to replace it by a system of loans, he will draw around his head a swarm of angry bees and Members of Parliament from both sides of the Committee. Although this may be a somewhat fierce debate, it has been—as are all our education debates—a

very friendly one; but the Minister must not trade upon the friendliness of this side by tampering with the grants in this way.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I support the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). I want to add one more to his most telling points against a system of loans. We must also remember that higher education is a form of investment, and that we need every young man and woman we can train. This is a form of obsolescence charge, and it is being applied at the very time when we are trying to convince sections of the community that higher education is not the prerogative of a small group, but is available to everyone.
If we rush into this situation, and insist upon loans, we shall undo the work done by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for the past 20 years. I can think of nothing which would be more disastrous, and which would be a more backward step for higher education. I thank the hon. Member for making this point.
I start by agreeing with the sentiments expressed by both Front Bench speakers. I agree with the Minister that more money—and a higher percentage of money within the educational sphere—is available for the universities, but I do not agree that there is an atmosphere of complete confidence in the universities. There is considerable alarm. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), who is a member of the Governing Board of Imperial College, is right in saying that there are doubts and worries in the minds of many people involved in higher education whether they will be able to meet the Robbins targets, although those targets may be too low in the near future.
I was a little disappointed at one remark of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), when he said that money for higher education could come from a cut in school meals or school milk. It would be very unfortunate if it went out from this Committee that these were the two alternatives, when the Government were spending £8,000 million or £9,000 million a year. We can find many alternatives


which are much more sensible and acceptable than this one.
Even if the money is not directly available, if the economic condition is such, there are one or two other alternatives by which we might improve the atmosphere in the universities and convince them that more can be done both by them and for them to improve the situation without necessarily spending considerably more money.
Looking back over the history of higher education in the last 10 or 12 years, I do not think that we have been as successful as some people imagine. We have increased numbers and we have more institutions, but this has been achieved in a rather haphazard fashion which reflects little credit on our capacity for future planning. I do not blame anybody. I admire the individual members of the U.G.C. who have toiled through this field, but I ask the Committee to remember that the U.G.C. has 22 men on it who are the heads of big departments, who are carrying on their own research and administration and who are expected, at the same time, to plan and advance a whole sector of higher education.
They are now coping with over £200 million per annum and 90 separate institutions in 40 universities. This is not possible, which is the reason for some of the unevenness of development. After all, there was no great expansion or planning for a number of years in the 1950s. Then, suddenly, the"bulge"was knocking on the gates of the universities. These young men and women, who had been born just after the war, and had been alive for 15 or 18 years and for whom nothing had been done, arrived at the gates of the universities and we were presented with a political as well as an educational crisis. There was sudden action and we threw up another seven universities.
I admire a great deal of what has been done in the new universities, but if we did this again would we create these seven universities? Would we not further expand some of the existing "redbrick" universities and civic universities, and be more sparing with new creations? After this expansion came the Robbins Report, and we were surprised to find that we had insufficient statistics. The

Minister told us that he was alarmed that insufficient statistical work, planning and preparation was still being done. All this shows the difficulty, I would say the impossibility, of trying to plan this vast sector of higher education with a part-time academic body which, although working prodigiously hard, cannot keep pace with this situation.
If any hon. Members have had the experience of a U.G.C. visitation, they will know what I mean. These unfortunate men travel to a university, weighed down by a mountain of paper which they cannot possibly assimilate. They stay for half a day if the university is small and two days if it is the biggest possible. Every minute of their time is taken up. They are beseiged by deputations and delegations. At the end of the day, I cannot conceive how they can get the "feel" of this institution, how they can adequately judge these things for perhaps the next quinquennium. It is impossible, yet we cling to this form of administration of higher education—the U.G.C.
I hope that hon. Members will not imagine that I am in any way hostile to academic freedom, but I think that it is a confusion in many cases. It covers two or three separate things. The crucial thing is not academic freedom, which is a confusing term, but intellectual freedom which counts. Nobody in Britain would tamper with intellectual freedom. Our whole life, our institutions, our Press everything in the country—supports intellectual freedom. I cannot imagine saying, "The answer to this piece of research is that the First World War was caused by A rather than B," and we could not imagine telling practical teachers how they should teach or what they should teach.
It is an entirely different thing to say that academic freedom involves treating a large and vital sector of higher education in this remote-controlled manner through a part-time body which cannot cope. When one goes round the universities, one finds that nobody supports the U.G.C. because it is the best method but because they cannot think of a better immediate alternative. I suggest that we could construct a better method in the next few years by organising higher education so as to retain intellectual freedom but, at the same time to allow this House to


exercise greater control, to get more information for the public and to give the universities a feeling that their needs are fully understood, that they have a method of explaining their case to the public.
If we did this, we would do something to remove the frustration, part of which is caused by lack of money, but part by the curious remote control which operates at the moment. My hon. Friend said that he was disappointed at some universities' "prickliness" about the quantitative controls applied to them. Some of these controls are silly. An example is when one is asked to divide the cost of a particular piece of equipment between post graduate and under-graduate teaching and staff research. In many cases, this cannot be done.
But this quantitative control arises only because the U.G.C. cannot know the university intimately. It cannot get to grips with it or understand its needs. It has to operate from a long way off. Secondly, a method is needed of university control which can also push a little. I do not believe that any body of men, however honourable, can be left to control their own profession completely by themselves. This applies to medicine, to law and to all types of organisation.
We investigate the Civil Service, probe it and have commissions. We consider it and talk about it in the House. Almost every senior profession is subject to this type of criticism. We ought to be allowed to discuss such matters as a disproportion between staff-student ratios. Those of us who have been in universities have seen difficulties arise when there is a sharing out of staff. This is done sometimes with expert planning but, often, when small oligarchies are in control, the easiest decision if one is to live with one's colleagues is to share new posts equally, one apiece. If there are four faculties, each can have one.
I remember once working in a university and asking why the faculty of divinity needed a lectureship each in campanology and liturgiology and the dean said, "If you are having two each, we will have two." Again, there is, in certain faculties and universities, considerable under-employment. This is known outside and it does the universities no good. They might as well

concede it. I used to travel to work at one time and see a poster which said, "Join the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and fight for a 40-hour week." I used to reflect happily on my university colleagues who had a 40-hour year and were still fighting.
I do not want to push these points too far. We can do a lot to help the universities by instituting a better system of public control which is more sympathetic and understanding, which could give larger sums to science and technology, for instance, which could leap ahead and give special grants where they are needed, but it might also be suggested that in certain faculties, it is a mistake for every university to teach everything. It is a mistake to reduplicate department after department. In some cases, extra staff may not be needed if they are only to teach four hours a week.
I know some universities where the teaching term, in effect, ends on March 13th or 20th for the summer, and the next formal duties of the staff are on 4th or 5th October. Nobody can seriously tell me that, if we are short of money and staff, we need four and a half months' holiday for this type of highly educated manpower. Nobody can tell me that we need to keep our libraries and classrooms unused for a total of six months in the year.
I see that Canadian and American universities are experimenting with a four-term year. The staff get one term off, they get the same holidays for research, but the university and its facilities are available for four terms in the year. They give the student the opportunity of graduating in four years of three terms or three years of four terms, which does a great deal to speed things up. I would like to see one of our universities trying out this experiment. There are many other methods we could try to use our facilities to greater advantage—to get back to the Robbins enthusiasm—and one suggestion I have is that we should produce a U.G.C. which hands out the money but which is more a part of the Ministry of Education. I do not think that we could abolish it. Indeed, there would be too much opposition to that. But in five or 10 years' time I believe that we will have to insist on more control, so let us make the U.G.C.


more a full-time body and more definitely a part of the Ministry of Education.
At the same time, we should give the universities an opportunity to express their point of view to the public. I would, therefore, like to see the Vice-chancellors' Committee expanded, with more members from other levels of university staff so that the universities would be able to give an explanation in public of what they desire. I would like to see Parliament setting up a Select Committee on the lines of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries to investigate two or three universities and their expenditure every year, although not in a hostile or critical sense. I say that because I do not believe that it is good for any body of men to be left totally in control of £200 million. The universities should be able to discuss these matters with a friendly committee, talking the matter over and discussing what they have done and how they might be able to do better. That would benefit all concerned.
When I was a university professor I was a member of the Study of Parliament Group which was designed to improve the conduct of the House of Commons. Now that I am an hon. Member of the House of Commons, I would like to be a member of a Select Committee designed to improve the conduct of the universities.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Because of the time at our disposal, I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) will forgive me if I do not comment on his remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) mentioned that this had been a friendly debate, and I hope that he will forgive me if I introduce a slightly less friendly note because I was somewhat surprised at the tone of the Secretary of State's speech.
However pleased the right hon. Gentleman may be with the progress that has been made—and the right hon. Gentleman called it "progress"—I thought that he was being rather complacent about it, for the picture in the university world today is very different from what hon. Gentlemen opposite said it would be in the heady days just prior to the 1964 General Election. At that time there were many promises, real or implied, and,

for example, the present Prime Minister found himself able to write:
Higher education is facing a crisis of unprecedented severity, and, if disaster is to be averted, vigorous action will be essential the moment a Labour Government is returned to power.
The Secretary of State wrote in his election address:
Labour demands a major educational advance.
What a different picture we have today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) deployed some of the differences and I hope that the Secretary of State is still demanding—although so far it appears to many of us that his demands have fallen on unhearing ears—because far from vigorous action is being witnessed.
To begin with, we had a postponement of the university building programme. More recently, we have had cuts. The confidence engendered by Labour statements has sadly evaporated, so much so that the university world deplores the present situation and the inadequacy of the resources that are being allocated. The Principal of London University commented in his 1965–66 Report on the fine response by the universities to the request of the U.G.C. in regard to the extra number of student places which they could provide, a question which was posed the very day after the publication of the Robbins Report. He stated:
Little did they realise that, less than two years later, they would be in a position which would bring to mind the plight of the Israelites who. centuries ago, were commanded by the Pharaoh of the day to make bricks without straw.
To give another example, the Chairman of the University Court at Sheffield stated that the Governments curb had had
… a disastrous effect on the university's programme.
Yet another example: the Registrar of the new University of Kent said last December, about the universities' development plans:
Nobody knows about the remainder of the programme…. The University Grants Committee cannot get a decision. We are bogged down in bureaucracy.
I do not wish to detain the Committee by giving further examples of the views of those who are directly concerned with the universities. Suffice to say that the


important remarks of these people should be put on the record to indicate the extent of the current air of disillusionment.
The people I have been quoting and many others concerned with the universities—lecturers, students and students to be—might well echo the words of the right hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins) who, in a long and interesting letter to the Prime Minister upon his resignation, stated among other things:
In fact, just before the General Election you"—
the Prime Minister—
gave me to understand that you would help to break down the shibboleth of the belief that what we needed to secure economic recovery was sufficient power in the hands of the Government to compel the unions to accept without question the decisions of the Board for Prices and Incomes.
He went on:
Unfortunately, you did not maintain that view and so our present policy has taken us into a position where disputes … have been inevitable".
The implication of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Nuneaton is obvious—win an election under one flag of convenience, but haul it down quickly when the need for it no longer exists. I thought that the whole burden of the Secretary of State's speech today was an apologia of this. The right hon. Gentleman said that the universities had not been unduly harshly treated, but I do not believe that there is any excuse whatever for the right hon. Gentleman having cut back their building programme.
In the light of the paramount importance of the universities to the future of this country—and in my view the future of Britain depends to an ever-increasing extent on them—their treatment should have been the very opposite to what has been doled out to them by the Secretary of State. That the treatment meted out to them so far by the Government is far from acceptable is the very reason for today's debate.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Richard Hornby: I apologise to a number of hon. Members who have not yet had an opportunity to speak in what has been a short by interesting debate in which a creditable numbers of speeches have been made. I

was surprised at the outset to hear the Secretary of State almost complaining of there having been too many debates on higher education. What a strange turn of events compared with two or three years ago when, on these benches, hon. Gentlemen opposite were complaining about very much the reverse situation; how we should be discussing this important subject far more.
My impression is that the right hon. Gentleman's complaint about there being too many debates on higher education is certainly not a complaint that is echoed in the universities, in which there is no longer any feeling that the discussion of their affairs by the House of Commons is an intrusion into their affairs. Rather, they take it as a compliment and a realisation of just how important to the national interest we regard what they are doing.
Incidentally, I thought that the Secretary of State was a little less than just to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) in saying that this interest in higher education was out of step with any similar interest in the schools. If he consults the record he will find that on 2nd March of this year we had a debate on secondary reorganisation, and on 25th April he will find 10 extremely interesting columns of my right hon. Friend's comments on schools and teacher supply as compared with half that number on the universities.
The background to this debate has been the growing concern about the abilities of the universities to reach the Robbins targets. I entirely agree with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) that the Minister was brushing aside a little too lightly the anxieties of vice-chancellors and others. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of melancholia, but whether that applied to the speeches in this House or to the universities I am not sure. We would not be wise just to set it aside as that, and no more, and not to take serious account of the complaints that are being made of some of the postponements that have been necessary in the planning of a number of universities—

Mr. Crosland: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the word


"melancholia" that he has just quoted came from a speech made by his right hon. Friend in Birmingham, three days ago.

Mr. Hornby: Then we now have the authority of both right hon. Gentlemen and of Punch, so we are in very good company in using the word again.
Also in everyone's mind in this debate has been the growing realisation throughout the country, and certainly in this House, that adequate provision for higher education is vital to us as an industrial nation. Equipment keeps scientists here; it is lack of equipment more than anything else that leads to the brain drain. There is a need for engineers in industry. We have report after report from university appointments boards of industry's crying need for much larger numbers of graduates of one kind and another than they are getting; of the need for teacher supply, and so on.
We were grateful to the Secretary of State for mentioning a number of interesting developments, but it seemed to me that his case really amounted to this. Present allocations, he contended, will enable the Robbins targets to be met. The universities are not being badly treated, but are getting a rising share of a rising educational budget. Perhaps we may just ask one or two questions about that argument. Of course, the expenditure graph is going up—so it has been, and so it must. The question is whether it is adequate to the needs admitted by hon. Members on this side of the House, by the right hon. Gentleman and by the universities themselves.
The Secretary of State referred in his comparisons to 1960–62 and asked us to consider what has happened since then. He will, however, remember that 1962 was pre-Robbins, and prior to the examination and the acceptance by the House and by my right hon. Friends of the chart that Robbins prepared for the nation of the needs in this field in so much detail and with so much skill. Those needs were accepted, and we are now questioning whether the capital that is made available will be equal to the needs.
Secondly, the Secretary of State—and, in a previous debate, the then Minister of State—said that there had been no

serious cuts since July, 1965, but only postponements of improvements. In such a key field as this, the point that needs emphasising again and again is that postponements are in themselves cuts unless any rises in costs that have taken place during the period of postponement are made good. We have had no indication from the Secretary of State of any addition from the previously announced sum. I should be grateful to the Minister of State if he would tell us whether any addition there will be possible.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman said that the figures for expenditure as maintained at present by himself are higher than those that my right hon. Friend was able to propose when he held office, but in making that point, as my right hon. Friend said, no account was taken of the fact that two of the programmes during the time when he was responsible were provisional, and allowance has to be made for the results of the obsolescence study on which my right hon. Friend commented. Perhaps the Minister of State will be able to tell us whether any allowance is now to be made in the programme to take account of the study, which has now been completed.
I mention that point because I think that it is true, as has been mentioned during the debate more than once, that the burden of the expansion programme is falling very heavily on many of the civic universities, where this problem of obsolescence and the need for capital to deal with it is being most acutely felt.
The Secretary of State asked us to bear in mind that, according to his own contention, he was ahead of the Robbins figures. But, in addition to what Robbins originally wrote and reported, we have to bear in mind that it is now universally agreed that the Robbins estimates are under estimates of the numbers of those needing university places; and that to meet the national need we have to be ahead of the Robbins figures. We want to know what allowance is being made for the new estimates of the numbers likely to need, and be of a standard to qualify for, higher education.
Then the right hon. Gentleman said that we have to consider the overall economic position. Of course we have—we quite understand that. The national economy is always with us, as every


Department, and particularly a heavy spending department as the Ministry for Education and Science very properly is, must realise, but here the question for the economy, just as much for the individuals and human interests concerned, is one of priorities. Research, industry, engineers, exports—we have mentioned the points before; the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members opposite during the election, and in the last Parliament and in this are full of emphasis on the high priority that must be accorded to economic interests no less than to educational interests and the development of higher education.
We on this side are bound to say that bearing in mind the July cuts, bearing in mind the rise in costs by as much as 12 per cent. since 1963, bearing in mind that some allowance for these rising costs has been made for the schools but not—and, again, we should like to hear more of this—for the universities, we wonder whether the universities are being given quite the high priority that was accorded to them in earlier speeches and thoughts, and which was accorded to them when my right hon. Friends were in charge of this Ministry.
The present position is a serious one for many of the universities. Of course, they realised that it would be a testing time for them. I accept that they would be right up against the margin of what they could achieve in any case. That reinforces the argument for asking the Secretary of State to beware, if possible, of postponements which have been necessary and to reinstate them if he can. We have suggested some of the reasons why they should be reinstated.
I shall briefly refer to one or two additional points made in the debate. I welcome very much what the Secretary of State said about research now being undertaken and work being done to keep the information supplied by Robbins up to date. If we are to get the allocation of resources right in this field this is very essential work.
I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) said about the status of the colleges of education and those teaching in them. I was interested in the perfectly valid point he made, but I ask him to agree that if one wants to think

about the status of the colleges one should also think about preserving the close links with the schools into which those who are learning how to teach and who are practising teachers will go.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) about the distances between many districts with substantial areas of population and their nearest polytechnic, is important. Of course, we want to concentrate on scarcities of people and resources. Up to a point that conflicts with trying to provide these centres relatively near to centres of population. I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Hands-worth said at the beginning of the debate, when asking the Secretary of State to go cautiously on any changes made in this direction.
I think that he will find that there are many existing institutions which, in the end, it would be seen valuable to have continuing in many of the courses they are at present running and which in the mind of the Secretary of State may now be earmarked for removal elsewhere. I think that he may find he is able to move towards a compromise in this respect. If he is to rigid on this he may find a loss of enthusiasm in.many places where excellent courses are being run and a loss of skilled staff and valuable contacts with industry.
I want to leave plenty of time for the Minister of State to reply to the debate. I come back to its main purpose, the priority now being accorded by the Secretary of State to the vital question of expansion of higher education. The universities were by us, and have in recent years been, given a very high place in the ranking for capital and other development. Certainly, vice-chancellors, among others, have a feeling that with the many competing claims which admittedly are before the Government the universities may be slipping back a little. In the opinion of the House of Commons it would be unwise if that were to be allowed to happen.
Unless the Minister of State can correct the impression which the Secretary of State gave that all is on target and all is relatively well in the universities and in what is being provided by the Government for them, my hon. and right hon.


Friends will be compelled to divide the Committee.

6.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): This has been a brief but extremely interesting debate. It has also been very wide-ranging. One would have hoped that there would have been time to deal with the many interesting and important points raised by hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, but, as my right hon. Friend said, he desires that I shall spend the comparatively short time at my disposal dealing with the main aspects of the important White Paper, "A Plan for Polytechnics and Other Colleges". If there is time I shall refer to points raised about the university sector, but I am sure the Committee will bear with me if I concentrate for the most part on technical colleges and prospective polytechnics.
In the debate there has been general approval for that White Paper. Hon. Members are in general agreement that the central aim of the proposals—to lay the basis for a distinctive sector of higher education within the further education system to complement the universities and colleges of education—is broadly acceptable. Certainly, the progress in further education in the past few years has been remarkable, reflecting the greatest credit on all concerned and particularly on local authorities on whom special responsibility has fallen in this matter. Their part in promoting the growth of the further education sector over the past 10 years is a major argument for the retention in public control of one sector of our higher education system. This is one of the advantages of the binary system.
There are 47,000 full-time and sandwich advanced students in England and Wales in the further education system and about 100,000 part-time advanced students. The National Plan makes clear the intention of the Government that by 1969–70 there should be 60,000 full-time and sandwich advanced students in England and Wales. This compares with the Robbins Committee estimate of 46,000 places by 1973–74, so here again we have overtaken Robbins and the progress is very creditable.
This, of course, does not include provision for students of 18 and over pursuing

courses in higher education which are not at present classified as advanced. On the adequacy of financial provision to match this progress, I remind the Committee that 10 years ago the value of further education major applied programmes was £9 million. Next year it will be £27 million. Putting the matter in terms of total public expenditure on further education, £50 million was spent on further education in 1955–56, £115 million in 1964–65 and the figure will rise to £170 million in 1969–70.
The National Plan shows that whereas total education spending will rise by 32 per cent. in the five-year period, planned spending on further education will rise by 58 per cent. These figures show that the Government are in earnest in developing to the full the further education sector as part of the united effort in higher education to provide for our young people, according to their age, aptitude and ability, the proper training which they deserve.
The proposals are intended to bring about a significant measure of concentration of resources. This is the central aim of the proposals. Quite naturally, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have shown understandable concern lest this should lead to over-hasty action in which very substantial and reputable colleges may be left out of a useful rôle in higher education.
My right hon. Friend wishes me to say emphatically that there is no intention of creating a rigid pattern, irrespective of traditions and individual circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) pressed for flexibility, and the right hon. Member for Handsworth asked us to move cautiously. A proper reading of the White Paper will reveal that this is precisely the way in which we approach this question. The changes proposed will not be effected overnight or in haste. They are essentially flexible and evolutionary. The great care with which provisions for consultation have been worked into the proposals proves this. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not designate a college or a group of colleges for status as a polytechnic, whether by merger or federation, until t here has first been full consultation with


the Regional Advisory Councils and with the local education authorities concerned.
Furthermore, he will consider what views regional economic planning councils have to put to him about the position in their regions. This applies to regions which may feel, having looked at the appendix to the White Paper that they have been, as it were, left out. The fullest possible discussion and consultation with the authorities in such areas will be conducted. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) referred to Staffordshire, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) referred to East Anglia. They can be fully assured that the position in the areas which they mentioned will be the subject of very careful consideration and study.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: With regard to East Anglia, there is the question of growing expansion not only in population, but in all education and further education. Therefore, will the Minister take account not only of existing circumstances, but of the likely circumstances as they develop over the next 10 years?

Mr. Roberts: I am sure that the regional advisory councils and the local authorities will, like the hon. Member, have those considerations very much in mind when they discuss the position with the Department.
These major centres will be developed as comprehensive academic communities, catering for full-time and sandwich students at all levels of higher education. The aim is to make the centres strong and large enough to offer a wide variety of disciplines, and to sustain an active community of staff and students. They would normally be expected to be capable of ultimate growth to at least 2,000 full-time students, apart from the part-time students recruited locally.
They must deal with three sets of students. We should get this absolutely clear. First, there are the full-time sandwich students, aiming at degrees and professional qualifications of degree level. Secondly, there are the full-time and sandwich students aiming at a range of higher educational qualifications below degree level. Thirdly, there are the part-time students at both levels.
This is also a description of the function of the other colleges which are not upgraded to being polytechnics, and which will continue to serve these three categories. The creation of the 28 to 30 major centres of polytechnic activity in no way means that there will not be that kind of activity in other colleges which are not upgraded.
The point was made—I think by the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby)—that there are colleges which, for one reason or another, cannot be included in a polytechnic arrangement, but which, nevertheless, have a high degree of attainment and of work, and it would be a great pity if any system were to result in our losing such colleges from the general higher education arrangements. This will not be so.
We shall need, in addition to the new major centres, a large number of part-time centres of higher education spread all over the country within reasonable access of students, of whose travelling difficulties we are very conscious. Part-time courses will continue to be subject to the criteria for approval of courses which are in force from time to time, and, as recommended in the recent Pilkington Report on size of classes and approval of courses, special consideration will be given to the needs of scattered country districts.
Secondly, the White Paper specifically provides for the continuance of full-time as well as part-time work in the specialist centres—colleges of art, agricultural colleges and the rest, when it is not practicable to include them in polytechnics.
Thirdly, there is the important provision under which colleges which are not specialist centres will be able to continue with full-time as well as part-time higher education if they satisfy special needs, as evidenced by the students' support necessary under the normal approval procedures.
There will, therefore, be no lack of flexibility, and we shall continue to need extensive provision outside the polytechnics. As to the colleges which, sooner or later, will have to give up their full-time higher education, I say this: one of the most important education Acts that the House unanimously approved during the last two or three years is the Industrial Training Act, which is now


beginning to be implemented. The teaching and practical resources of the colleges which will not come into the polytechnic area will be increasingly needed in order to serve the young men and women from industry who, under that Act, will be seeking special training and education.
I am sorry that I have not been able to refer to a number of important points. As I have said, I was extremely anxious that the main points of misunderstanding and misapprehensions about the terms of the White Paper should be clarified. My right hon. Friend and I would be most

Division No. 95.]
AYES
[6.59 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gower, Raymond
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant, Anthony
Neave, Airey


Astor, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nott, John


Balniel, Lord
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bell, Ronald
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Biffen, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hastings, Stephen
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Blaker, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Bossom, Sir Clive
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Peyton, John


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heseltine, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Brewis, John
Hiley, Joseph
Pink, R. Bonner


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hill, J. E. B.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Hirst, Geoffrey
Prior, J. M. L.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pym, Francis


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bryan, Paul
Holland, Philip
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hordern, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Campbell, Gordon
Hornby, Richard
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Carlisle, Mark
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridsdale, Julian


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hunt, John
Roots, William


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Channon, H. P. G.
Iremonger, T. L.
Royle, Anthony


Chichester-Clark, R.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Cooke, Robert
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Sharples, Richard


Cordle, John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Carfield, F. V.
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, John


Costain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Stainton, Keith


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kirk, Peter
Stodart, Anthony


Crawley, Aidan
Kitson, Timothy
Talbot, John E.


Crouch, David
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Tapsell, Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Lambton, Viscount
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Dance, James
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Temple, John M.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Tilney, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Loveys, W. H.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Doughty, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Wall, Patrick


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maddasn, Martin
Walters, Denis


Eyre, Reginald
Maginnis, John E.
Ward, Dame Irene


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Whitelaw, William


Fisher, Nigel
Maude, Angus
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Foster, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Worsley, Marcus


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wylie, N. R.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Miscamphell, Norman
Younger, Hn. George


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)



Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Goodhew, Victor
Mol[...]t-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Mr. R. W. Elliott and




Mr. More.

ready to meet hon. Members who have raised important points on which they would like further information, or groups of hon. Members, and discuss those points very fully with them.

Sir E. Boyle: In view of the Minister's failure to answer our points on obsolescence and rising costs in university building, I beg to move, That item Class VII, Vote 1 (Department of Education and Science) be reduced by £5.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 171, Noes 267.

NOES



Albu, Austen
Finch, Harold
Mayhew, Christopher


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Robert


Alldritt, Walter
Floud, Bernard
Mendelson, J. J.


Anderson, Donald
Foley, Maurice
Milian, Bruce


Archer, Peter
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Armstrong, Ernest
Ford, Ben
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Ashley, Jack
Forrester, John
Moonman, Eric


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fowler, Gerry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Barnes, Michael
Garrett, W. E.
Moylo, Roland


Barnett, Joel
Garrow, Alex
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Baxter, William
Ginsburg, David
Neal, Harold


Bence, Cyril
Gourley, Harry
Newerrs, Stan


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Gregory, Arnold
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Bessell, Peter
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oakes, Gordon


Binns, John
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Ogden, Eric


Bishop, E. S.
Hamling, William
O'Malley, Brian


Blackburn, F.
Hannan, William
Oram, Albert E.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hattersley, Roy
Orme, Stanley


Boardman, H.
Hazell, Bert
Oswald, Thomas


Booth, Albert
Henig, Stanley
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Hooley, Frank
Pardoe, John


Boyden, James
Hooson, Emlyn
Park, Trevor


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Horner, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bradley, Tom
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Brooks, Edwin
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pentland, Norman


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Howie, W.
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hoy, James
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Probert, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hunter, Adam
Purley, Cmdr. Harry


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hynd, John
Randall, Harry


Cant, R. B.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rankin, John


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Redhead, Edward


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rees, Merlyn


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Chapman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Coe, Denis
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Coleman, Donald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Judd, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Roebuck, Roy


Cronin, John
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rose, Paul


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Leadbitter. Ted Ledger, Ron
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sheldon, Robert


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lomas, Kenneth
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Luard, Evan
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lubbock, Eric
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dewar, Donald
McBride, Neil
Slater, Joseph


Dobson, Ray
McCann, John
Small, William


Doig, Peter
MacColl, James
Snow, Julian


Donnelly, Desmond
Macdonald, A. H.
Spriggs, Leslie


Driberg, Tom
McGuire, Michael
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dunn, James A.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dunnett, Jack
Mackintosh, John P.
Swain, Thomas


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Maclennan, Robert
Swingler, Stephen


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Taverne, Dick


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Ellis, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston S.)
Thornton, Ernest


English, Michael
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Hudderefield, E.)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Ensor, David
Manuel, Archie
Tinn, James


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mapp, Charles
Tomney, Frank


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Marquand, David
Tuck, Raphael


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Roy
Varley, Eric G.

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Whitaker, Ben
Winterbottom, R. E.


Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)
Whitlock, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Yates, Victor


Wallace, George
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Zililacus, K.


Watkins, David (Consett)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)



Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Weitzman, David
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Mr. Waiter Harrison and


Wellbeloved, James
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Harper.

It being after Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set

down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for Taking Private Business).

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (SEAFORTH WORKS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months."
The Bill is promoted by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, which is a public trust owning and controlling the Port of Liverpool. In the Bill the Board asks Parliament for certain powers to carry out what I can describe without exaggeration as the biggest and the most exciting and enterprising dock construction scheme in England in this century. I am humbly proud to represent the constituency in which this is happening. I am unrepentant that perhaps some objections which I have to the contents of the Bill have resulted in the facts of this scheme being brought on to the Floor of the House instead of being tucked away in a Committee upstairs. It is a project of immense national importance to our external trade.
I will sketch the background to the Bill and to the project set out therein. There are on the Liverpool Docks and within the Port of Liverpool 37 miles of quay in the 2,700 acres of the Port of Liverpool. In the 171 foreign berths, 43 coastwise berths and three petroleum berths there are two major inadequacies. "Inadequacies" is perhaps a mild word. It might be more apt to describe them as defects or strangleholds to development of the docks and of trade across the docks as it is envisaged in the next 10, 20 or, indeed, 50 years. The two major defects are, first, the lack of deep water berths—that is, berths—over 35 ft. in depth—and secondly, the narrow Victorian construction of the rail-served berths of the Port of Liverpool.
To overcome these defects the Board first envisaged a scheme which would have cost £65 million and would have provided 30 new deep water berths. That scheme would have been carried out over quite an extensive area to the north of

Gladstone Dock, which, as hon. Members who know the Port of Liverpool will know, is the northernmost dock on the Liverpool side of the Mersey. That scheme of 30 new berths at a cost of £65 million would have bitten deeply into a pleasant and picturesque residential area of my constituency along what might be called the Waterloo Front. That full scheme may well come into operation at some future time, but that is not the scheme which is put before Parliament in the Bill.
The present scheme is likely to cost £36 million and to provide 14 deep water berths with wide areas of working space. On about 300 acres of land and foreshore at Seaforth just north of the Gladstone Dock and built out into the Mersey will be these 14 deep water berths having a depth of about 42 ft. and being able to take ships up to 650 to 800 ft. in length and of from 60,000 to 70,000 tons. These 14 deep water berths will be divided into two bulk cargo berths and 12 general cargo berths.
The need for this is clearly shown by just one simple statistic. I do not want to give many figures which it is not easy to memorise. The dry cargo in the Port of Liverpool has increased by nearly 100 per cent. during the last 15 years and is expected to increase by another 100 per cent. in the next 15 years, so I think that the need for an extensive scheme of this sort has been clearly proved and its national importance is shown by the past increase in trade and the expected increase in trade. Right hon. and hon. Members can appreciate that such a massive scheme of development cannot be executed without disturbance to the neighbourhood. About 300 acres are to be taken to build the dock buildings on the land. The piers of the docks them-selves will stretch out into the Mersey by about 3,500 ft.
In this respect the scheme differs from the normal development scheme which public authorities, local or otherwise, bring before the House in Private Bills. It is not just a simple development scheme of a corporation which wishes to develop a small area within its jurisdiction. These are docks comprised of slanting piers out into the Mersey, piers giving about 70 ft. quay margins, which will slant towards the north-west. The bunding wall will


be about 3,500 ft. from the land. Slanting at that angle the piers will overshadow the residential front for a considerable distance and will damage the character of the residential area for a considerable distance along that front.
This is not easy to explain without a blackboard and a piece of chalk. I ask hon. Members to imagine the shore as running north and south. The docks will not protrude out from the shore at right angles from east to west, but will point towards the north-west, causing a sort of V-shaped overshadowing of part of the residential area. To the east of that coastline, on the land, there is a large rectangular area which will be used for the dock buildings and the dock installations behind the docks themselves.
The Board owns most of the land, so there will not be any very extensive compulsory purchase. But there will be an extensive effect on the property in the neighbourhood which is not compulsorily purchased. For the acquisition of the land, the Bill has certain of the normal provisions. Clause 3 introduces provisions for both acquisition and compensation under the Land Clauses Act.
Clause 5 states the land which may be acquired by the Board. It says:
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board may enter upon, take and use such parts of the bed, banks and shores of the river Mersey and of the sea and such of the lands in the borough of Crosby in the county and in the borough as are delineated on the deposited plan and described in the deposited book of reference as may be required for the purpose of the works authorised by this Act … and for the reclamation of land in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Later, the works are set out for the purpose of which land can be acquired. Compensation for damage done during the execution of the works and from the act of carrying out the works is provided in Clause 16, subsection (1) of which sets out the works to be carried out.
Clause 19(3) provides that
In the exercise of the powers conferred by this section the Board shall cause as little detriment, and inconvenience as the circumstances permit to any person and shall make reasonable compensation for any damage caused by the exercise of such powers.
So any of the neighbouring properties that suffer injury while the works are

being carried out are properly protected by that Clause.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Am I right in thinking that Clause 19(3) is confined to the subsidiary works? There is no parallel protection, so far as one can see, regarding the main works described in Clause 16.

Mr. Graham Page: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point. I was perhaps concertinaing—if that is a good word—my remarks, because I have been unable to discover the difference between carrying out main works and the subsidiary works, which seem to include all those things which might damage adjoining property in the carrying out of building docks and installations and so on. It is true that Clause 19(3) relates to subsidiary work, but I think that it would cover damage caused to neighbouring property through the building of the docks and the erection of buildings on the dockside, and so on. This, then, deals with the owners whose property is taken in compulsory purchase powers. The Land Clauses Acts deal with this aspect and gives compensation. Clause 19 deals with those injured during the execution of the works.
Clause 8 deals with the acquisition of part only of certain properties:
No person shall he required to sell a part only of any house, building or factory, or of a park or garden belonging to a house, if he is willing and able to sell the whole of the house, building, factory, park or garden unless the tribunal determines—

(a) in the case of a house, building or factory, that such part as is proposed to be taken can be taken without material detriment to the house, building or factory; or
(b) in the case of a park or garden, that such part as is proposed to be taken can be taken without seriously affecting the amenity or convenience of the house to which it belongs."


It means that, if the Board requires only a part of a person's property and the rest of the property left in his hands is damaged or deteriorates in value or is deprived of amenity or convenience, he is entitled to claim compensation. But many owners retaining all their land adjacent to the dock development will lose perhaps a great deal more than the man who has had part of his land taken away from him. I do not think that, as against the Board, I really need argue


this with any great force because the Board itself has recognised the principle. When the Bill came before a Committee in another place, the Board gave an undertaking to certain adjacent owners, to a body calling itself the Crosby Residents' Association.
I assure the Minister that I hold no brief for this body. In fact, I have suffered severely at its hands for supporting the Bill. I had to face a meeting in my constituency of about 500 of my staunchest supporters in the ordinary way. I supported this project and I only escaped through the back door with my life I think. I have never had such a violent meeting in what is usually a very peaceful constituency. Nevertheless, I hope to support the Association not in its opposition to the Seaforth works project, but in its desire to obtain a fair deal for the residents adjacent to the development.
The Board also recognises this because it has given an undertaking that, on the roads bordering the dock area, it will give notice to the owners of these properties when it intends to start work and the owners may then give a counter-notice to the Board requiring it to purchase their property. The undertaking relates to two sides of a rectangle which will form the working part of the docks. This area is now a pleasant part called Potter's Bar and is bounded on two sides by dwelling-houses, on the third side by the existing docks and on the fourth side by the Mersey.
In respect of the houses bordering it on two sides and which are outside the area to be acquired for the purpose of the scheme by the Board, the Board has nevertheless given the undertaking that, if an owner of these houses feels that he is injured by the dock development, he will be entitled to serve on the Board a notice and it will purchase him out. I always prefer undertakings of this sort to be embodied in a Bill. I would much rather see this one plainly stated in the Bill as part of the powers of the acquiring authority. But even if it were in the Bill in that form, I think that these powers would stop short of the implementation of a principle obviously recognised in this undertaking.
If it is accepted that something ought to be done to relieve the hardship of

those who suffer a loss by a project of this sort, it is surely quite illogical to restrict it to those who merely face the land where the project is to be carried out, who are on the road adjoining it, and to refuse it to those who in this case will suffer damage by the docks themselves slanting out into the river in front of their properties.
The undertaking does not give the Board any alternative whether to pay compensation for the loss or damage suffered by those residents, or to buy them out. The undertaking obliges the Board to buy them out. I would have thought that the right thing to do was to include in the Bill some provision that any of those whose property is damaged by this development should have the same right as the man who has part of his property taken from him and receives compensation for the damage done to the remainder of his property, but that their genuineness in this should be tested by the Board being allowed to say that, instead of paying compensation, it will buy them out.
If the owner, having given notice that his property had deteriorated in value, had claimed compensation and then had had the reply from the Board to say that it would not pay compensation, but would buy him out, he should be entitled to withdraw his claim and remain as he was. This would be fair to both sides. I would have thought that it was right to put a straightforward provision of that sort into the Bill for compensation for what is well known in law as material detriment to property.
It is no answer to say that this has never been done before. A project of this sort has never been done before. It is quite an exceptional project and it needs exceptional treatment, both from the point of view of the authority carrying it out, and the individuals who are affected by it. Every year, we have public authorities acquiring new powers in Private Acts. I recollect that only last year the City of London came to the House with an entirely new proposition for making owners of adjoining streets into criminals for the acts of other people. We were promised then that that particular new law for the City of London was quite exceptional and would remain to only the City of London. This year,


the Greater London Council included it in its Bill and has been given the power.
This sort of thing has happened again and again. Many local authorities are proud of being pilots for schemes of this sort for trying out a new law for the benefit of their communities. Perhaps in this case we can try this out as a pilot for the individual's rights, as so frequently we are asked to try them out for the rights of public authorities.
Because of Clause 8 recognising a principle, but only partially recognising it, and because of the undertaking which recognises a principle, but only partially recognises it, I hope that the promoters will see that an appropriate Clause to this effect is included in the Bill.
There is another matter which should be included. In this, I refer to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Statement of the Promoters, which, no doubt, hon. Members will have seen in their post this morning or yesterday. In paragraph 3 the promoters describe the works and the phasing of the works and go on in paragraph 4 to say:
The promoters are satisfied that these new works are required as a matter of urgency to meet the requirements of the trade of the Port of Liverpool. This view is fully supported by the National Ports Council who in their Interim Plan for Port Development published in July, 1965, in referring to the proposed works, stated at page 75 that they will be required as soon as they can be built and that the work on them should be treated as a matter of urgency. They went on to express their alarm that the berths of the first phase were not expected to be in use before 1971 and that, as contemplated at that time, those in the second phase would not be completed until 1975. They added the works should be completed sooner if possible.'
I imagine that on that encouragement the Mersey Docks and Harbours Board will try to get on with the work as quickly as possible, and from the point of view of the work being done, I hope that it will.
But that means it will use its power to expedite entry under Clause 9. This allows it to enter land at very short notice and to take possession; in short, to evict the owner of that land. But if the compensation is not at that time agreed, the Board has no power to pay it. If, for example, the owner is convinced that what he is being offered by way of compensation for the compulsory purchase of his property is not a good enough figure, he is entitled to have that tried by the Lands Tribunal. But it will

take his a very long time to get his case before the Lands Tribunal. The Board will not wait for that, because it will want to get on with the job and it will use its powers to enter.
The individual may be turned out of his home, perhaps without the resources to buy another. He may be turned out of his business without the resources to acquire another business. The Minister has heard me put this argument upstairs on more than one occasion, but it applies particularly to these provisions. Here is an authority coming forward and asking for special powers to carry out a special project. It is recognised that people will be injured through this project being carried out, but it is a project for the benefit of the community. If it is to be carried out quickly, there will undoubtedly be cases when it is impossible to agree the compensation at the moment when the Board will have to enter to carry out this development work.
The Ministry of Transport has a rule that in such cases the Minister may pay to the owner 90 per cent. of the district valuer's valuation and leave the rest to be argued out before the Lands Tribunal. Payment is without prejudice and the owner fighting it at the Lands Tribunal may have to pay back some of that 90 per cent. But it enables the owner to acquire other property if he is displaced and it enables the public authority to enter into property without feeling that it is causing grave hardship to some individual if it can provide him with funds to rehabilitate himself in a home or business elsewhere.
I would have thought this would be a right provision to put into the Bill, having regard to what is said in the promoters' statement when they say that they want to get on with the job and do it quickly. A disputed claim for compensation will not be settled in the three years within which the Board wants to take its powers under the Bill. If it is disputed, it will take a long time to be settled before the Lands Tribunal. I would hope that the Board might be permitted to advance at least 90 per cent. of what it would regard as the compensation to which the man would eventually be entitled.
I am grateful to the House for bearing with me for this length of time. To us on Merseyside this is a vitally important


project. Wt hope that it will go forward as quickly as possible in the national interest, for the benefit of the local communities, and for the benefit of the Port of Liverpool and the City of Liverpool. But in carrying out this project, I hope it will be seen that protection is given to the individual who might suffer hardship from being deprived of his property.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for bringing to its attention the problem of compensation. As the House knows, he is an expert on local authority legislation, on their powers and how they should be used. Naturally I agree very much with what he has said about the greatness of the port of Liverpool. Colleagues on both sides of the House would agree that it is not only the port of Liverpool, but the port of Birkenhead, Wallasey, Crosby and Bootle, and I hope to see the day when it will be the port of Greater Merseyside. But that is quite another matter. Many of us had the privilege of being guests of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board on a lovely autumn day and being taken aboard the Dock Board yacht to be shown the site of the new dock.
Quite rightly, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby has referred on many occasions to this great development, but I regret that technically at least he wants to put it back by at least six months. Of course we all have sympathy with many of his constituents. I have the privilege of living in Liverpool and my house has the most lovely view across the Mersey. I would object if the town clerk of the Corporation of Liverpool planned to build something which deprived me of my view.
Whatever might be said, I do not believe that a Private Bill of this kind is the right measure to use for changing the general law of compensation in Britain. We must all agree that no one has any legal right in either a view or a property which is affected by what may happen to contiguous properties. One knows what might be the feelings of those who live immediately under, say, the Hammersmith flyover. One has great sympathy

with those who have lived, as my hon. Friend's constituents have done, in a charming part of Merseyside, looking across the wide sweep of the Mersey and knowing that in a few years' time that view, the delight of their children and friends, will be changed substantially.
But it would be changed for the betterment of the people of Merseyside and of Crosby. I do not believe that one can change the general law. For instance, if there is a by-pass around a city or a small village, is my hon. Friend wishing to compensate the shops whose trade will diminish and the petrol stations which may no longer serve passing motorists because of the by-pass? Laws have to be changed in due course, but this is so fundamental that I cannot believe that it is right to change it in a Bill of this kind.
It would be grossly unfair upon other citizens of Merseyside and of Crosby who may not be allowed compensation under other legislation while some would be allowed compensation if the House were to accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend. Since 1906 the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board has held powers to develop the estate into Crosby up to the Cambridge Road area. Anyone who has bought a house in that area in the last sixty years had only to look at the town map to be aware of the ultimate plans of the Board.
My hon. Friend referred to further developments north. I have no doubt that, as the Dock Board has already shown great understanding for the needs of his constituents who wish to conserve their property, when this addition is made those living on the Esplanade or Marine Crescent or any of the other delightful roads of Crosby will be considered. The Crosby Residents' Association has already made its complaints and the Board has agreed to consider any representations made by the Association about the appearance of the northerly portion of the work.
After the consultations and discussions between the residents and the Board, I have no doubt that the view may be bettered by agreement between the two parties. The Board has also said that a limited number of properties on the northerly side site, that is the northerly side of Crosby Road South and


in Cambridge Road, will or could be purchased. The Board is prepared to purchase them at an agreed price. I take the view that on this development the valuation of the property is much more likely to go up in the years to come than to go down. The Board has said that it is prepared to pay a price which the owners would have received before the announcement of the proposals. I hope that the House will bear in mind that the only owners of property to be acquired by the Board are the Crosby Corporation, British Railways, the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster other than those whom I have already mentioned and whose property could be sold by private agreement. I agree with my hon. Friend that we want to see a fair deal for his constituents, although I am not at all sure that it would be possible to provide compensation of 90 per cent. of any purchase price paid according to the custom rather than the rule of the Ministry of Transport.
I should like to quote part of a letter which I have received from the Chairman of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, which says that the Board may
be expected to acquire the land they need immediately but there will, in fact, be very few, if any, cases in which a reference to the Lands Tribunal is at all likely to be necessary.
It goes on to say that the Board would
give sympathetic consideration to any application by the owner of land which they are proposing to acquire for payment of a substantial proportion of the Board's own valuation of the land—either on taking possession or in a case of hardship even prior to taking possession.
I hope that that will satisfy the National Federation of Property Owners, which has written to many hon. Members, and the House. I believe that it is academic to put into a Bill of this kind a Clause mentioning compensation of 90 per cent. or a change in the general law.

Mr. Graham Page: My hon. Friend said that the Board would be prepared to pay a "substantial proportion" of its valuation of the lands. Would he enlighten us a little more about the phrase "substantial proportion"? It would then be easier to judge the value of the Board's undertaking.

Mr. Tilney: The Board, like the Corporation of Liverpool, is made up of eminent citizens in their directorate. I

believe that it will treat my hon. Friend's constituents fairly and that, on a valuation, it would be prepared to pay a reasonable sum. Obviously it cannot say that it will pay 90 per cent. because a small property may be involved and the extra 10 per cent. might be swallowed up in expenses. But I am virtually sure that it would more than meet any average commonsense suggestion about price by my hon. Friend.

7.53 p.m.

The Minister of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Frederick Willey): I hasten to intervene to provide reconciliation between the hon. Members for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney). I am sure that, because of the cogency and lucidity of the case which he advanced for the Bill, the hon. Member for Crosby does not intend to press his Amendment. He has taken the opportunity to raise two substantial points. In the context in which he has raised them, he can rest assured that there will be no harshness or injustice. There has been reference to the assurances, and I am sure that the Crosby Residents' Association will be well content with them.
The hon. Member for Crosby has taken this opportunity to argue the case for altering the law. I can only briefly repeat what the hon. Member for Wavertree has said, equally effectively. I am sure that the hon. Member for Crosby recognises that there is always a reluctance to change the general law by private bill legislation. There is a particular reluctance, when dealing with compensation because, as the hon. Member said, this would cause inequities between adjoining land owners, and we are always anxious to avoid it. It would be very difficult to justify that in equity. But, apart from that, while we are obliged to the hon. Member for Crosby for opening the discussion, he will recognise that this is a matter to which we have to give much thought before changing the law.
There is the difficulty which the hon. Gentleman raised that this is a very wide concept. He talked about the character of the area. He mentioned the illustration of a bypass of a village or town. It would be difficult to conceive of any public or, for that matter, private


development which might not have some adverse effects on somebody's property.
The other point which the hon. Member for Crosby mentioned concerned what I might describe as "enhancement". As he is well aware, we are not discussing betterment. I have used a different word. We are concerned not with development value but with current use value. I am not saying this to discourage the hon. Gentleman. He has served a purpose in calling attention to this. All I have done is to say that before we even accepted his case that the general law should be altered we should have to pursue the matter further.
We have elsewhere discussed the second question which the hon. Member for Crosby raised about compensation of 90 per cent. In view of what the hon. Member for Wavertree said, I would emphasise that there would be no injustice in accepting the assurance which he gave that this matter is largely academic. We are mainly concerned with the land held by the Crosby Corporation and the Duchy of Lancaster. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the experience of the Ministry of Transport. It was that experience which led me to the view that we should allow the vesting procedure for the Land Commission. But the difficulty in the proposal which the hon. Gentleman has made lies in reducing this to a statutory form. We should certainly have to look at this more carefully before we altered the general law.
The hon. Gentleman has raised two specific points on the law of compulsory purchase. These are matters which should be considered. I know his particular interest in the law of compulsory purchase. If he thinks that he has other matters which he should draw to our attention, I would welcome his doing so. But we cannot effectively deal with these matters in private bill legislation. If there is a case for a revision or review of the law of compulsory purchase, let us do it generally. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the two points which he has raised will be seriously considered by the Government.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Harold Gurden: It was because of the failure of the general law on compulsory acquisition that I put my name to one

of these Instructions. Far be it from me to intervene in matters concerning the Mersey, but it has been my experience that considerable hardship has been caused by compulsory acquisition all over the country and certainly in the Midlands.
Having listened to part of the debate—and I apologise for coming into the Chamber late—I should have thought that we should not allow a Bill such as this to go through without amendment, as is suggested, if it were against the general law. If the general law has been found to be faulty, we should ensure that no other Acts were passed which perpetuated the fault.
As I have said before, there is considerable hardship on many people who have their land compulsorily acquired. Very often they have to wait years for the cash to find alternative accommodation. It is dreadful to think that some of these people may have their land acquired, entered upon and their property taken over without having the money with which to provide other accommodation.
As I see it, it is within the competence of the House to do something about it, although it is against the general law. In a case like this, it does not look to me that the House must be controlled by Acts of Parliament which it has passed on other matters. I would have thought that it was within the competence of the House to put it right so far as other Acts are concerned. If there is not to be any change of the general legislation and no Government come along with such suggestions, I hope that we shall see to it that there is a fairer deal for people who have to lose their land.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I have no wish to trespass into Merseyside, but, as an hon. Member representing a constituency on Severnside, I have views and a few thoughts which I would like to give to the House.
May I say, first, that I hope very much that the interest of my hon. Friends the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Tilney) will be reconciled. No two hon. Members have striven harder to achieve local progress in their area


and to see fair play and proper compensation.
What I am now going to say may be cold comfort to them. In looking at the great clock undertaking which Merseyside wants so badly, I hope that some lessons can be learned from the way in which the Port of Bristol has tried to achieve its undertaking at Portbury, near Bristol. In my view, it went the slightly better way round and acquired the land first, and it is only the present Government who have frustrated its efforts. It may be that in looking for new schemes in the future, and perhaps even to resolve some of the difficulties in the present scheme, the authorities in my hon. 'Friends' area will be able to acquire the land and go ahead with its works, but the present Government may frustrate even that.
I conclude by wishing my hon. Friends well in their efforts. I hope that the Government will get on with both schemes, particularly the Portbury scheme, near Bristol.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I do not wish to detain the House very long, and I hope that no one else will. ft is unfortunate that the Bill has been held up as long as it has.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that by putting down the Motion on the Order Paper the Bill has not been delayed one moment in its next stage.

Mr. Heffer: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. Graham Page: It is not.

Mr. Heffer: We have had two speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite support-mg the Amendment. We have also had an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) with which I agree entirely. He has put the case admirably. But we have heard contradictory speeches. On the one hand, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has said that the position is quite exceptionable and that he is arguing purely from an exceptional point of view. He says that it is quite different from anywhere else, and he bases that on the argument that part of the new dock will be slanting out into the river. That is his case.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) said that he was arguing for people all over the country who were affected by the development. Well, either it is an exceptional case or we are arguing a general principle. I believe that the hon. Member for Crosby is arguing a general principle and is using the Bill to try to introduce something that he wants to see brought in as a new law. If that is so, I go a long way with him. I, too, am concerned about the small people who are affected by redevelopment. I want to see them get a square deal. Every hon. Member has these problems in his constituency and knows of people who are affected by redevelopment and need some assistance.
If we look at the exceptional circumstances and not the general principle, let us see precisely what the exceptional circumstances are. A new dock is being built in the Port of Liverpool. It needs a large wharf going round the dock. There are large wharves round all the docks there now. It is only an extension of the dock. There is nothing exceptional about it except that I hope that perhaps it will be a little more beautiful architecturally than docks we have had in the past. If it is to be exceptional, I hope that it will be exceptional in that direction.
There is nothing new about the building of a dock. Docks are being built all over the world. Wherever a new building is put up, someone is affected. In my own constituency, an extension has been put on to a factory called Reads, which is part of Courtaulds. It could be argued that that is exceptional, because people living nearby can hardly sleep at night. There is also a new bakery being built in my constituency. People affected by that kind of thing have an important case, but it cannot be legislated for in the Bill, as my right hon. Friend has made perfectly clear.
I would appeal to the hon. Member for Crosby not to push the matter further and make this the occasion to introduce something which is of national concern into a Measure which is concerned only with Merseyside.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the need for the dock being well understood by all hon. Members from Merseyside. I


hope that that goes for the whole country. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) tried to make a party point, and, accordingly, I feel that I am entitled to do the same. We in the Labour Party have argued for the dock for many years. It has been before the Liverpool City Council. Reference has been made to it in our manifestoes. We believe in it, and it is what we want.
I understand that the Conservatives have argued for it as well. Everyone in Liverpool is for it—Conservatives, Liberals and members of the Labour Party. I ask the hon. Member for Crosby not to push the matter further and enable us to get it through as quickly as possible.

Mr. Graham Page: Having regard to the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a second speech on a Second Reading debate, unless, of course, he wishes to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is what I hope the House will permit me to do. However, I think that I am in order in saying why I wish to ask for a certain course to be taken.
Having regard to the very encouraging statements of the right hon. Gentleman that the principle which I have enunciated might well become the law of the land, although I still think that my constituents are entitled to special preference, and having regard to the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, I think that I would be correct in asking the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment to postpone the Second Reading for six months.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Graham Page, I take it that you do not wish to move your Instruction.

Mr. Graham Page: indicated assent.

Orders of the Day — LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL(By Order)

As amended, considered.

New Clause.—(PROVISIONS AS TO COMPENSATION.)

If the existence of the works will result in material detriment or serious affection of the amenity or convenience of any house, building or factory and if a person having an interest in such house, building or factory shall apply to the corporation for the reasonable compensation for which provision is made in this section, the corporation is authorised by this Act to acquire by compulsory purchase the said interest (when six weeks shall have elapsed after the corporation shall have given to that person notice of its intention to acquire his interest in the said house, building or factory, as the case may be, and the application for compensation aforesaid has not been withdrawn) and if the corporation shall not so acquire the interest it shall make, in respect of any loss occasioned or to be occasioned to that person by the existence of the works, such reasonable compensation as may, in default of agreement, be determined by the tribunal.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause covers the same principle as that which we have just been discussing in connection with the other Bill. I shall endeavour not to repeat the arguments, but I think that it is important to consider this principle in connection with this Bill.
If I understand them correctly, the main purposes of the Bill are to acquire land in the city to build a new road system, and to develop land adjacent to the new road. I doubt whether such an ambitious, and rightly ambitious, scheme for the development of a provincial city has come before the House on any previous occasion.
Liverpool is a city of 720,000 people. It is the second largest provincial city in England and Wales, it is the second port of Britain, and it handles 25 per cent. of the nation's trade. It is the focal point of a population of 2 million on Merseyside. The roads, the ferries, and the tunnel all concentrate a tremendous flow of traffic into the centre of the city. Perhaps the word "flow" is ill-chosen, because at some times of the day in the centre of Liverpool, when, for example,


there is a breakdown in the tunnel, the flow of traffic ceases in the centre of the city.
All provincial cities have their traffic problems, but I venture to say that Liverpool's is greater than that of any other provincial city, because, superimposed on the normal traffic of a city which is the centre of such an immense area of population, there is the dock traffic, and the congestion caused by this traffic endeavouring to get its goods into and out of the docks.
Liverpool, faced with this great problem, has decided to cater for its traffic rather than to ban it. It is true that under the Bill there will be a certain amount of restriction on traffic within the centre of the city, but I think that it is right to interpret the projects set forth in the promoter's statement on the Bill and in the Bill itself as projects for catering with the traffic rather than trying to restrict it and turn it out of the city.
The project is to develop an inner motorway five and a half miles in circumference. Some parts of this motorway will be at ground level, but some parts of it will be elevated as much as 30 ft. There are to be dual carriageways, each of three lanes, normally side by side, but in some places one on top of the other. To a large extent this inner motorway will go through property which is obsolete and ripe for development, but it will also go through other property which is usable, and which has a long life before it. The scheme is phased over 15 years, and is likely to cost about £57 million.
In the promoters' statement the proposed new road system is described as
a major ring road, built to motorway standard",
and they add that
the new works as a whole will act as a hub and focal point for the primary routes which now radiate from the City Centre to the City Boundary and into the surrounding areas.
This is all to be accomplished, not merely by building this inner motorway, but by acquiring property adjacent to it and carrying out development alongside the motorway, first, the development of car parks to keep as much traffic as possible out of the centre of the city, secondly, for the purpose of providing land for those who are displaced from

the immediate land on which the road will be placed, and, thirdly, to acquire land so as to bring this new road within a system for the whole of the City centre.
8.15 p.m.
I think that perhaps no scheme as bold and as imaginative as this has been conceived previously for any provincial city, and I believe that if Liverpool is to survive as a major city of the United Kingdom it is necessary for this scheme to go ahead and I believe that it is a scheme which will meet the need for the survival of Liverpool. But it involves great powers of acquisition of land.
The Bill provides for that acquisition and for the payment of compensation by incorporating the Lands Clauses Acts as they relate to the power of acquisition of land, and the payment of compensation. It gives the corporation power to carry out these compulsory acquisitions within three years, but it also gives the Minister power to extend those three years, and if the scheme is to be phased over 15 years, obviously this power of compulsory acquisition will be extended. In such cases Clause 6 gives an owner of property the right to serve a purchase notice on the corporation so that he may force the corporation to acquire property which may have become blighted by the anticipated scheme.
Furthermore the corporation has been very wise to provide an option Clause. I shall not go into the details of it, but briefly it means that the matter can be settled between the corporation and the owner, if the owner wishes it to be so settled, at an early date. The corporation has also given an undertaking that it will endeavour to find other suitable accommodation for many of those who will be displaced.
To a great extent the corporation has recognised the injury to individuals which this scheme will cause for the benefit of the community, and that when land is taken, and when an owner's property is damaged, for the benefit of the community, that individual should be compensated. Thus, as in the Bill which we have recently been debating, there is a Clause which deals with compensation to the owner who is left with part of his land when the other part of it is taken for the purpose of the project. He will receive compensation, whereas the man


whose land is damaged because it is adjacent to the motorway will get no compensation at all.
What I think it is important for the corporation to consider is that in many parts of the city there will be an elevated roadway perhaps passing by the first or second storey of an office block or residential building, and undoubtedly causing a severe deterioration in value of such a building, due to the proximity of a busy road. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) who mentioned the Hammersmith flyover.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: Is it not correct to say that Liverpool Corporation is not only taking the land required for the actual motorway but a small area of land on either side, for the sole purpose of landscaping it, in which case the argument that the hon. Member is putting forward will not apply?

Mr. Page: I mentioned that as being an intention of the corporation, but I do not understand from the scheme that that will happen all along the length of the motorway. I expect that there will be many instances where the proximity of the motorway will damage adjoining property but in respect of which there will be no grounds for a claim for compensation. The damage to an individual's property should be recognised, even though no part of that property is taken from him.

Mr. Walter Alldritt: My hon. Friend has raised the question of additional land acquired alongside the motorway and has suggested that this was for landscaping. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), in reply, has said, "Yes, it is for that purpose." Is there any authority for this statement?

Mr. Page: In their statement the promoters say that there are three associated purposes for the acquisition of land. They wish to acquire land not only for the actual site of the motorway but for three other purposes—first, for high capacity car parks, secondly, in order to offer alternative accommodation to those displaced by the motorway, and, thirdly, in the words of the corporation:

the Corporation have sought to avoid, in the design and construction of the new elevated road, the serious injury to amenity which can arise from the mere imposition on an urban area of a major elevated road system, and drawing on the limited experience which has been gained in this field in this country, and the much greater experience gained abroad, propose to acquire on each side of the line of the new road adequate land which can be redeveloped in such a way that the new road will be properly integrated into and blend with the urban landscape.
The promoters have recognised exactly the problem to which I am referring, namely, that if they build an elevated road neighbouring property will be damaged, and it will therefore seek to acquire land adjoining the road and thus alleviate that hardship. But there is no guarantee that throughout the whole length of the road the corporation will be able to carry out its intention as described, and if it is unable to avoid this serious injury to the amenity of adjoining properties those adjoining properties should be compensated.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree is under some misconception about what I was endeavouring to put forward in connection with the previous Bill. I seek to bring into the ambit of the new Clause the question of "material detriment" to the property. This phrase is used in all the Acts which deal with compensation for severance. I seek to cover the question of material detriment, or the case where development has seriously affected the amenity or convenience of the property. I do not think that this would cover the case of a by-pass road taking away trade from business premises. I know that business premises are frequently injured in that way, but I am seeking to concentrate on serious damage to property—damage which can be seen or felt by the man who has to live or work in that property. He should be compensated.
I see no reason why we should wait for an amendment to the general law to do this, and I hope that in the same way as the Liverpool Corporation is a pioneer in the development of city centres it may be a pioneer in the amendment of the law.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Hon. Members will know that the Bill has the unanimous support of


all parties in the Liverpool City Corporation and also of every Liverpool Member, in principle. I want to place on record the fact that the debate, together with the previous one, has been attended by nearly every Liverpool Member of Parliament—by my hon. Friends the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), the Member for the Scotland division (Mr. Alldritt), the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), the Member for Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) and, on the benches opposite, the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney)—and I know that the hon. Member for Garston (Mr. Fortescue) is also closely concerned with the Bill and supports it in principle.
We may have our points of difference on later Clauses, but I want to put on record the fact that if some of us have deliberately kept quiet, in spite of the temptation put in front of us by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), it is because we hope to secure the Second Reading of the Bill before 10 o'clock. We do not want to do anything Lo delay its passage through the House more than it has been delayed in the past. Silence is golden on occasions, and this is one of those occasions.

Mr. John Tilney: My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and I see eye to eye on so many things that I hate to find myself once again in opposition to him, although not in respect of many of the things that he said, and especially his tribute to my city of Liverpool. I rake this opportunity of expressing the thanks of the Liverpool Cathedral Committee to the Liverpool Corporation for meeting its objections. I know that the corporation has also gone out of its way to meet the objections of many Liverpool citizens.
This is a matter in which we are all interested, on whatever side of the House we may sit. We want to see the trade of Liverpool fructify and increase, and one of the ways of doing that is to improve urban transport in our city. We have done it quite well recently with our one-way streets, on which traffic moves very much better than it did a year or two ago. We all live by the trade of the

Port of Liverpool. We want to see it increase as much as possible. I only regret that so many people who work in Liverpool wish to live either in Wirral or even in Crosby. This is something I find difficult to understand.
8.30 p.m.
I must point out that a Private Bill of this kind is not the method by which one should change the general law dealing with compensation, a law which, I understand, has not been changed since the Land Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845. I am no lawyer, but this is what I am told. My hon. Friend may say that it is high time there was a change, but if so it surely should be done by a general and not a Private Bill.
I sympathise with many of the citizens of Liverpool for feeling that they should get compensation for injurious affections. It seems a little unfair that if a part of someone's property is taken, the owner of that property not only receives compensation for the land taken but also receives compensation for any injurious affection to the rest of his or her property.
This is something which the Minister should consider in the general context of the law. As the law stands at present, it would be as well for the House to remember, with regard to injurious affection, that under Section 68 of the 1845 Act compensation is payable only if the four following requirements are satisfied—first, that the injurious affection is such that it would have given a right to an action for damages if it had not been authorised by Statute; second, that the injurious affection arises from the execution of the works and not from their subsequent use; third, that the value of the land or an interest in the land is directly affected by physical interference with some legal right of which the claimant is entitled to make use in connection with the land, for instance, the obstruction of the right of access; and, fourth, that the damage flows as a direct consequence of the actions or omissions of the body authorised by Statute to execute the works complained of, the measure of compensation being assessed in the same way as damages in an action for tort.
Under Clause 10 of the Bill, the corporation has to give three months' notice


to acquire and it will pay the purchase money plus interest on the money when it is ultimately paid. The corporation has indicated that once it has settled the price of purchase and investigated the title, it will make that payment without undue delay. It wishes to ensure quick payment and to avoid hardships, especially for those who may have to await a decision of the Lands Tribunal about compensation.
The corporation has also indicated that, as regards relocation, it would be prepared to advance money by mortgage according to the circumstances. Ninety per cent. may be the wrong figure, but the corporation is a good landlord and a good negotiator: a third of the city of Liverpool is owned by the corporation. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the fact that the Corporation would like to meet the wishes of those for whom he has spoken, but Treasury consent must be received for any capital borrowed in order to pay my constituents or the citizens of Liverpool, and remember too that the corporation are no less accommodating than the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. Charles Mapp: I was one of the four Members who, upstairs, made the recommendation referred to on page 4 of the corporation's statement. We were concerned with the fact that the commercial interests of Liverpool originally arraigned against the Bill, and for powerful arguments, withdrew their opposition before the Committee sat. To that extent, it should be recorded that the commercial interests so vividly described by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) have, in the main, been fairly well satisfied.
The Committee upstairs was particularly concerned with what I call the little people who might be hurt. It is in the light of that that I listened carefully to the Minister's statement, for I would not like to feel that that statement, which sort of foreshadowed a serious look which will be given at this problem, will be any wider than many of my hon. Friends wish it to be.
I come to the nub of the argument, which is that in the case submitted by various people through what I believe was a residential association, the complaints of the ordinary people were ven-

tilated before us and it became clear that the Federation of Property Owners saw that it was an opportunity for it to advance the general case for better compensation terms. I recognise this to be the fact and I assure my right hon. Friend that it will have little or no encouragement from me.
Having said that, I recall my experience in, for example, Oldham, where we are knocking down thousands of houses every two or three years and where, in my consultations with the people concerned, I have found that the owners of commercial premises are generally well-satisfied. In other words, in their ownership of premises, when those premises fall for clearance, they have always found that their interests have been safeguarded in the first place by all the legal advice and advantages which professional ownership gives to them.
There is, however, a case to be made on behalf of the little people—the small shopkeeper and owner-occupier—and I take part in this discussion mainly to ask my right hon. Friend if, as I hope, these people will be considered, the question of whether the existing compensation terms are fair and proper for 1966 onwards must be considered bearing in mind that there is a substantial difference between the professional owner of property and the safeguards which he takes before becoming the owner of such property and the safeguards which he operates during the period of his ownership, and the little man who is not versed in this sphere and who, for purposes of thrift or enterprise runs a little shop or owns a house or is in some other way an owner-occupier. There is a substantial difference between the two types of people.
If, in a year or two, the House of Commons is faced with a variation in legislation which is intended to meet the hardships of these little people, then, with that possibility in mind, we should be cautious when considering this matter, because it is felt by many people that the larger businesses I have mentioned are well able to look after their own interests.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause.—(FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO COMPENSATION.)

Before exercising any power of entry upon land that may be acquired compulsorily under this Act (or so soon thereafter as a person


having an interest in the said land has deduced a good title to that interest) the corporation shall pay to a person having an interest in that land

(1) the whole of the purchase price of that interest if the said purchase price has been agreed between the corporation and that person, or
(2) in default of such agreement, a sum equal to ninety per cent. of the amount recommended by the District Valuer as the proper compulsory purchase price of that interest, such payment being made and received without prejudice to determination of compensation by the tribunal.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause raises again the point of payment of compensation and I wonder if I can hope to get the same sort of undertaking from the Liverpool Corporation as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board was good enough to give on the previous Bill. The question of the payment of compensation was raised n the earlier discussion on this Bill in Committee upstairs and the corporation has given an undertaking concerning payments. The undertaking was given to petitioners against the Bill on their withdrawing their petition. I quote from a hart of the undertaking:
Furthermore the Corporation, for its part. will use its best endeavours to settle the purchase price and investigate title in any particular case without undue delay with a view 10 insuring that the purchase moneys may be paid as quickly as possible …
However, that relates only to the payment of purchase money after the purchase price has been agreed. It is the position before the purchase price has been agreed with which I am mainly concerned—where the owner of the property or anyone else with an interest in it is not prepared to accept the compensation offered by the acquiring authority. The acquiring authority is not always right in its valuation of a property, otherwise no cases would come before the Lands Tribunal. 'The fact is that many cases do come before the Lands Tribunal and the acquiring authority is held to have offered too low a figure. But it takes time to act a case before the Lands Tribunal, and my proposal in this new Clause is that if the corporation wants to enter into property it should be prepared to pay

a large proportion of the value as recommended by the district valuer.
I cannot see that this can really be any hardship to the corporation. It seems to be a very practical and fair provision. If the Minister feels that a local authority ought not to put a provision like this in a Private Bill in case it becomes some sort of precedent, perhaps the Corporation would be prepared to give an undertaking. I am not sure whether the Corporation has power in fact to make a payment of this sort, but I think that it possibly has. After all, not the whole of the money is coming from the Exchequer; a large proportion of it is coming from the ratepayer, and the corporation would have complete control over the money which it raises itself.
I believe that the corporation could give an undertaking in place of inserting this new Clause in the Bill. I have said before, I always prefer a statement in a Bill rather than have an undertaking outside it, but in this case I would hope that something might be put forward whereby we could be assured that the owner who was unable to agree the price put forward by the corporation was not forced, by lack of funds, to agree what he believed to be less compensation than that to which he was entitled.
I thought the statement made on the previous new Clause by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) was rather extraordinary. I now wonder whether he intends to support me on this new Clause and to say that all the rest of his colleagues will keep silent because they want the Bill to get its Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman said "So that the Bill could get through its Second Reading," but he is a long way behind the times. The Bill got through its Second Reading because I withdrew objection to it before the last General Election by agreement with the corporation that on Report I would raise the points I had wished to raise on Second Reading. By my putting these new Clauses on the Order Paper on Report the passage of the Bill has in no way been delayed, but I have exerted the right as a Member of this House to raise in debate matters in a Private Bill.

Question put and negatived.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

A gain considered in Committee.

Original Question again proposed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BEER AND CIDER (MEASURES)

8.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I beg to move,
That the Weights and Measures (Exemption) (Beer and Cider) Order, 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
This is a simple, desirable and necessary Order which, I am confident, will have the unanimous and speedy approval of the House. Although the title says that it is an exemption Order, I point out at once that it does not exempt consumers of beer and cider from the protection against short measure which the Act itself provides. What the Order does is to recognise approved new appliances for measuring beer and cider in public houses and bars of hotels which have come into use generally since the Act was passed.
Hon. Members who take a modest glass of beer or cider occasionally will have seen these new devices in operation. They usually have the appearance of a glass or transparent plastic cylinder which, when a tap is turned or a lever pulled, fills up with beer or cider to a mark on the cylinder and then empties that amount into a glass or mug. Under the existing Regulations it is illegal to serve beer or cider from a machine of this type unless it is also served in a stamped half-pint or pint glass, a glass which has been measured and stamped by a weights and measures inspector. The customer therefore gets double protection. If he is buying a half-pint he gets a half-pint from the machine in a stamped half-pint glass.
There are compelling reasons for eliminating the second protection of the stamped glass, but on very strict con-

ditions. The first and overriding condition is that the machine, the dispenser which I have attempted to describe, must be of approved design to make sure that it delivers half a pint or a pint every time and the mechanism and quantity marked must be examined, tested and stamped by a weights and measures inspector. These requirements will guarantee that the customer gets full measure.
The next condition laid down in the Order is that customers must also be able to see the machine or instrument in use. It is not essential for each customer to insist on seeing the beer drawn from one of these instruments, but if he wants he can go to the bar and witness the operation. It is sufficient that the instrument can be seen in operation by customers generally. These instruments, as experienced hon. Members will know, have been in operation for a long time now in many parts of the country. We know that they operate satisfactorily and fulfil all the requirements of the Act. I am sure the House will agree that they should receive the legal recognition provided for in this Order.
I said that there were compelling reasons why we should pass this Order quickly. The most urgent of them is that the licensing justices in one city, which I had better not name, have granted a liquor licence to a football club where World Cup matches will be played this month, but the licence carries a condition that beer is to be sold only in lightweight plastic containers. I can only guess at the reason for that condition. Unless the House approves this Order, every one of those containers will have to be tested and stamped by a weights and measures inspector at a cost of about 9d. per container. That would have a serious effect on the cost of living in that part of the country during the next few weeks, and I am sure that no hon. Member wants that to happen.
Therefore, what, in effect, we propose to do is to allow beer and cider to be sold in any kind or size of hygienic container—the hygienic side, of course, does not come into this legislation—provided that the beer comes from a machine which dispenses the full measure. There is a wider reason for approving the Order. It will allow publicans and others


who sell beer or cider, and who use these instruments, to get rid of the stamped glasses that they must now use. They will be able to buy unstamped, unmarked glasses, which at least should reduce their costs, if not their prices.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison: It is a very great pleasure to follow the Minister of State on this pleasantly liquid Measure, in contrast to the rather duller solids which we have to discuss in the Committee with which we are both concerned. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. We on this side of the House welcome the Order and believe that it will be welcomed by beer dispensers—here I refer to all human dispensers, including the fellow who shoves it down the hatch.
It has taken a long time to reach this sensible compromise. There was an unfortunate twilight period in which the unfortunate publican had the worst of both worlds. He had to have a metered drawing instrument which was subject to Board of Trade inspection, and at the same time he had to dispense the metered beer into a measured glass. We are relieved that this senseless bit of double-counting is now being eliminated.
This is welcome, if slightly tardy, legislation. Powers were taken under the 1963 Act to make this possible, and it has taken two years of Socialist modernisation to introduce this reform, which has not even yet reached the Strangers' Bar, or the Members' Smoking Room—if it ever does. But let us not be churlish; it is a welcome reform.
One is on treacherous and unstable ground in drafting Statutory Instruments, and indeed in all legislation. I refer the Minister of State to Article 1(iii):
the liquor in question is so delivered after a buyer has ordered it;
Has the Minister realised that he has opened up another loophole for a statutory offence if, God forbid, the Board of Trade happened to be a snooper, or if, God forbid, a Board of Trade officer had a grudge against a particular publican? The publican who sees a customer, an old and valued friend, coming in and says, "Your usual, Sir?", drawing to before the order has been given, has been made guilty of an offence under the Order, because he has drawn the beer before it has been ordered.

Mr. Darling: Surely, in those circumstances, it is the sort of standing order that does not need to be repeated on every occasion?

Mr. Alison: It would be interesting, if it were necessary and the Order were not universally supported, to try our hand at drafting a suitable Amendment to close the loophole. No Statutory Instrument is perfect, and this, to that extent, is imperfect.
Article 1(ii) says:
the liquor in question is delivered directly from the measuring instrument into the container in which it is intended the buyer should receive it;
It is easy to be a little facetious about this. The question arises, into what alternative container might the beer be so delivered? Article 1(ii) seems to envisage the possibility of a publican being in the habit of squirting it into somebody's eye. Is it really necessary to safeguard the consumer against this hazard, in view of the fact that Article 1(iv) makes it plain that the instrument for delivering the beer must be visible to the naked eye?
One can only assume that the provision is meant to be a safeguard against transposition—the pouring of beer into one container and then into another, and so on down the line until a great deal is lost. If the instrument is to be visible, one would not have thought that this hazard arose, unless there were a situation—and this is a serious point—in which a messenger was sent from the office across the road with a big jug to be filled up for the rest of the staff's lunch. The jug is in no sense a statutory measuring receptacle, and it is arguable whether it is the container in which it is intended that the buyer should receive his liquor. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reassure us that no offence will be committed if a casual messenger goes into a pub to get beer for his mates at lunch in a quart or three-pint jug.
Article 1(i) reads:
the quantity of the liquor the subject of the sale is ascertained by means of a measuring instrument stamped in accordance with Regulation 14 of the Measuring Instruments (Intoxicating Liquor) Regulations, 1965".
If Beachcomber of the Daily Express, of immortal fame, had taken this little paragraph and added in brackets, "Issued by the Ministry of Bubble-blowing at the


instance of Charlie Suet", sending it in as part of his weekly column, he would have qualified for his fee.
However, we do not want to be churlish. We welcome this tardy reform in the interests of publican and consumer. I conclude by pointing out that this is one subject, beer, in regard to which the Government recognise that customer and manufacturer are interdependent and have common interests.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: This is an interesting subject and a great change from what we usually have to discuss in the House. I welcome the Order as a step forward, and I am sure that most consumers and brewers in the South-West will welcome it, too. In the West Country we produce a great amount of cider, and we are concerned about the quantity that people are drinking. However, I still think that the best cider and beer is drawn from the wood and, whatever people say, I shall not be shifted from that view.
I am a little surprised at the way brewers are concerned about the quantities which they supply. I should have thought that, with their very fair margin of profit, they could be reasonably generous in their measures. I can well understand the customer wanting his full measure, of course.
In this connection, I draw attention to a practice, which may come to this country, which I saw recently in Australia and New Zealand. People there are considerably in advance of us in this matter. The beer mugs and jugs are put all along the bar, there is a pipe with a tap on it like a petrol bowser, and the barmaid goes along the bar filling up all the jugs and jars. When she has got to the end, she starts again at the beginning to make sure that all have the right quantity in them. This is a most interesting advance, and it may one day reach us in this country.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. John E. Talbot: I cannot say that I altogether welcome the Order, representing, as I do, a constituency which makes glass. I would like the Minister to tell us a little about

the consultations which took place before the Order was made. In my view, we are going about this from the wrong end. Because one bench of magistrates seems to fear that visitors to a football match will hurl glasses at one another and they want the receptacles to be made of such soft and pliable material so that if hurled they will do more harm to a person's forehead than a baby's balloon, we are to have this Order, causing considerable dislocation in the way we have served alcoholic liquors from time immemorial.
There is one factor to be borne in mind. A stamped glass remains of the same size throughout its life. What guarantee will there be that a machine which delivers beer in what might be described as a statutory portion will be inspected at such regular intervals as to ensure that it delivers the liquid precisely in accordance with the amount the customer should receive? So much work already attaches to weights and measures departments that the onus of inspecting properly will be considerable. I should like to hear from the Minister of State what instructions he will give to weights and measures authorities to ensure that the true quantity of beer as required by the customer is delivered through these instruments, which I suppose must be accepted in the same spirit as we accept the computer age in general.
I feel that the President of the Board of Trade should have allowed more time for thought and consideration to be given to this Order. I can only suppose that his reason for not doing so is that he is afraid of international incidents at football matches at which people might be present who are not able to control themselves with the typical English phlegm. We are so used to hearing about fights with fisticuffs on the floor of the Chambre des Deputies that we are sometimes surprised that such events do not take place here. I feel that perhaps the Government have allowed their anxieties to run away with them in their enthusiasm for this Order. If only more time were allowed for this matter to be discussed and sorted out with the trade interests concerned, I should be wholly in favour of the Order. As it is, I have reservations which I hope that the Minister of State will be able to dispel.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: I do not rise to question the Order, but rather to put a few questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. As I understand, if it were not for this proposal tonight all beer containers would have to be clearly stamped or marked with their exact measure of capacity. To do this would be so costly as not to justify the degree of consumer protection which it would be desirable to achieve. Indeed, although I have expressed views on this point before, I would not press the question of consumer protection to such a point that it defeated its own object and made the cost to the consumer prohibitive.
If beer and cider is to be sold in any type of container, provided that it contains a full measure, can we have an assurance that the customer will know exactly what the full measure is? I believe that the measure would be in bird, half or full pints. This is the normal requirement for beer sold in draught in this way. If the container is not clearly marked, it is important that the customer should know exactly what he is receiving. I hope that the Order does not in any way preclude this.
I am not sure whether the Order has any effect—I think probably not—on the question of the marking of containers of beer or cider sold in bottles or cans. The view has been expressed by weights and measures inspectors and others that beer sold in bottles or cans should be in third pints, half pints or pints, just as beer sold in draught is. I know some of the administrative difficulties involved. I should like some guidance from my right hon. Friend as to the effect of the Order in this respect. If it has no effect in this respect, at some time in the future I hope that measures will be taken to ensure that customers are protected in this way.
I raise these points purely to seek information. I am told that questions are sometimes designed to elicit information and sometimes to embarrass. The questions I have raised are not intended to embarrass, but what the consumer gets from liquid he buys has been the subject of recent publicity and assurances on these points would be well received from my right hon. Friend.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) asked about consultation with the glass manufacturers. Such consultation was the reason for the delay in presenting the Order. We have had a series of discussions with the manufacturers. They were worried, with some justification, about the possible quick development of this method of dispensing beer and cider and that they might have left on their hands a large supply of stamped glasses which the publicans will not take because they will be under no obligation to have stamped glasses if they have these dispensers. I think that we put their fears at rest.
When one takes into account the total number of "pubs" and hotels selling beer and cider, the number of measuring dispensers is comparatively few. Therefore, the need for stamped glasses is still considerable, and I am sure that the manufacturers will have no trouble in getting rid of all the stocks they nave. Indeed, I believe that the demand for the manufacture of stamped glasses will go on for some time.
I shall not be drawn into discussion about whether glasses should be provided at football matches. I shall certainly not comment on whether it is foreign visitors who are likely to misbehave themselves. I am convinced that the World Cup matches will be carried on in a friendly atmosphere and that there will be no trouble at any of the grounds involved.
The hon. Member for Brierly Hill (Mr. Talbot) also asked about instructions to weights and measures inspectors for regular examination of these machines or instruments to make sure that they go on dispensing full measure. We did not bring the Order forward without full consideration of the machines and how they operate and how long they can be relied upon to give full measure. The examination of all these matters is another reason why there is some delay in bringing forward an Order of this kind.
The weights and measures inspectors have been looking, by arrangement with the trade, at these dispensers and making sure that they operate satisfactorily. They are convinced that they do. From experience, they now know how frequently they should go along and make sure that everything is in perfect working order.
In a case like this, it is not necessary for the Board of Trade to give instructions to the inspectors. They have their own institution, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because he has been involved in local government, and they consult among themselves. They also do research into matters of this kind.
The inspectors can be relied upon to make sure that their visits have some relation to the length of time that they know that these machines will go on dispensing full measure. Of course, the Board of Trade is involved and consulted, but from my experience I would say that this is one of those happy associations between central and local government where there is no conflict of any kind—at any rate I have never come across any—because all these matters are discussed in such a sensible way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) asked how the customer will know that he is getting full measure. The mark will be on the glass cylinder of the machine and there will be a clear indication, by some device, that the measure is a half pint. My experience is that these machines dispense only half pints, but under the regulations pints could be dispensed if anybody gets around to making a machine to do so. The customer will be able to see the mark on the glass container.
My hon. Friend also asked whether the Order dealt with the marking of bottles and cans. I regret to tell him that it does not do so. It deals only with draught beer and cider, and the very serious problem, which he has so frequently raised, about the proper marking of quantity on bottles and cans will have to be dealt with outside the scope of the Order.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash referred to the drafting of sub-paragraph (ii). I assure him that, having decided what we intend the Order to do—and I think that we now all understand what it is intended to do—we have to leave it to the draftsmen to make sure that we have it all in legal shape. I would not like at this stage to start arguing whether the legal language should be altered. So far as I am concerned, it will do.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Weights and Measures (Exemption) (Beer and Cider) Order 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE

9.12 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Herbert W. Bowden): I beg to move,
That a Select Committee be appointed to review the law of Parliamentary Privilege as it affects this House and the procedure by which cases of privilege are raised and dealt with in this House and to report whether any changes in the law of privilege or practice of the House are desirable:
That Mr. Bellenger, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Maurice Edelman, Mr. Michael English, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Quintin Hogg, Mr. Anthony Kershaw, Mr. Harold Lever, Mr. James Ramsden, Mr. S. C. Silkin, Mr. G. R. Strauss, and Mr. Jeremy Thorpe be Members of the Committee:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; and to report from time to time:
That three be the Quorum.
The House may recall that during the last Parliament there were two occasions when the Committee of Privileges had before it cases recommended to it by the House to decide whether Parliamentary privilege should be invoked. During the course of our deliberations on those two cases, we concluded that it was obvious to us as members of that Committee that a rather longer and cooler look should be given to the whole subject of Parliamentary privilege. That was confirmed at the time by articles in the newspapers, and I recall particularly one learned article by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) with which I considerably agreed.
I said in a debate at the time that I felt that at some time the House should consider looking at the whole subject of Parliamentary privilege, certainly not with a view to adding to our privileges, but looking at the position as it was, because, when it has to deal with cases, the present Committee of Privileges is always bogged down with precedents and, rather as with Standing Order No. 9 at the moment, is tied by what has happened over many years in the past.
The Motion is in accordance with the promise given to the House at the time


seriously to consider whether we should set up a special Select Committee to consider the: subject of Parliamentary privilege. It was felt, and I entirely agreed, that this should be done by the Committee of Privileges itself, because, as will be appreciated, at any moment it might be involved in having to take a decision on a matter referred to it by the House as to whether Parliamentary privilege should be invoked.
The Select Committee which I am now proposing has terms of reference which have been agreed in the usual way through the usual channels. They will give the proposed Select Committee an opportunity to look at the whole subject of the law of Parliamentary privilege as it affects the House, bearing in mind that there is no desire whatever to add to our privileges in any way. It will be appreciated that this is a very difficult task and may take some considerable time. It is a task which, I am sure, ought to be carried out distinctly and apart from the review of any immediate case which might come before the Select Committee of Privileges itself. That is why the proposal is in this form.
The composition of the Select Committee has, of course, in the usual way, been a matter of discussion through the usual channels. We have combined the experience of hon. Members who have been here for many years with that of newer Members who may have some new ideas a ad with that of Members representing the legal profession. I know that they have an onerous task to do. I think that the selection has been about right, and I hope that the House will approve the setting up of this Select Committee.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am glad that the Leader of the House has given us an explanation for this Motion, the background to it and has gone into it at some length. I am glad, also, that he has mentioned that it is necessary to look back with knowledge to what has happened in the past. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House celebrates his 21st birthday here today, as I do. I wish him and myself many happy returns. I hope that I might be here in 21 years' time and to see him here, too.
It has always been understood in this House that questions of privilege should be dealt with by old and respected hon. Members. I do not mean old in years, but old in knowledge and experience of the House. Invariably, these Members have been Privy Councillors or those who have been, as we say fathers of the House. I mean fathers in the sense of membership, not because they have the largest families. These have been the sort of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have served on the Committee of Privileges and I was therefore rather surprised to see this new Committee.
I want to raise one or two points and, first, I want to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker for guidance. As I want to quote from the Motion, I hope that may quote the name—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sidney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking guidance of the Chair. The hon. Gentleman must name hon. Members' constituencies.

Mr. Lewis: May I have your guidance? I want to quote from the Motion and I assume that I would be in order in quoting the names of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are mentioned there because I would not be referring to them by name but referring to the Motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member must refer to hon. Members of the House by their constituencies.

Mr. Lewis: Then it will be rather difficult, because it is very hard to remember the constituencies of hon. Members. I see their names on the Order Paper, but it is the custom to pause and wait, and turn to the hon. or right hon. Gentleman to elicit his constituency from him. I can remember the names of the older Members and I will attempt to deal with them first.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) is, of course, an old and respected Member. When I say old I mean old in experience of the House. Far be it from me to say that the right hon. Gentleman is old in years, because both he and his constituents, and I am certain, his constituency party would resent that. He is an experienced and respected Member of the House. He is a former Minister and he has been active in this House for many


years. No one would query his appointment. The next right hon. Member I shall refer to is the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). I was about to say that his deeds are known to us. He, too, is a respected hon. Member who has given long and faithful service to the House. He is very active and can be seen going about his business, doing his stint. We know that he has been of great service to the Opposition. He was a former Minister. Here I interpose the hon. Member for—

Mr. Robert Cooke: The zoo.

Mr. Lewis: I do not know whether that is Parliamentary. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) boasts of the fact that he is a Member of or for the zoo; he will know which it is. I accept his point.
I have no personal interest in this matter. I give you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the assurance that at no time in my 20 years' membership have I been asked to serve on or be associated with any Select Committee. I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be pleased to know that after 21 years of endeavour I have at long last been appointed to serve on one of these bodies. But it is not the one with which we are concerned. I have no interest in or have any wish to be considered for the Select Committee proposed in this or any other Motion.
I am serious when I mention the hard work and endeavour of the Members who serve on these Committees. I am not suggesting that I, or any other hon. Member, should or should not be in the list on the Order Paper. But I was going through the list to try to ascertain why they have been selected, appointed or adopted through, as the Leader of the House says, "the usual channels". This is an expression of personal opinion which I believe is shared by a number of hon. Members. I am wondering how these wild and weary and weird usual channels operate.
Let me get back to the question of those who have been nominated to serve on this Select Committee. There is the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), who is a very active Member. He does a lot of work for the Council of

Europe and is very often in Strasbourg. Perhaps that is where he is now. He is an old and respected Member. I know little about the next Member. I see that he has a very good name, that he is a good English man. He is the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). He is probably very knowledgeable about our Parliamentary procedure.
Then there is the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). We cannot forget the constituency of Ebbw Vale, for various reasons. It is held now by a very active Member. He is often here and often raises points which I think help the Government—and help the Opposition. I gave my hon. Friend notice that I would attack him. I hope that he does not mind my attacking him in his absence. He told me that he had a very important meeting to attend. Perhaps he has run out because he did not want to hear me attack him. He made some remark to that effect as he left.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale has had great experience. He has been in the House for many years, and he has taken part in many matters connected with privilege. However, I do not think that that alone is any reason for selecting an hon. Member, because it would apply to a number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have been here for 20 or 30 years. All of them claim great knowledge and experience in matters pertaining to privilege, and all of them could claim great knowledge of our procedures. They could all walk round with bundles of papers under their arms, taking a kind of market survey, saying to other hon. Members, "I came here six months ago, and I am going to set this place alight. I am the man who can really show how things should be done. If any Committee is to be set up, I ought to be on it."
That may be the way that my hon. Friend was appointed; I do not know. I was going to say that it may be because he often creates trouble, but that would be putting my foot in it. I would not suggest that he causes trouble, but very often he has something to say and he comes forward with ideas and suggestions. That may be why he was appointed; I do not know.
Then we have the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). His claim cannot be overlooked,


because he is right in more ways than once. Be is right hon. and honourable He is a Queen's Counsel—a legal luminary. He is very active in the House both for the Opposition and for the Government, and we are grateful to the electors of St. Marylebone for letting us have him here, because he helps us so often, and, as one of my hon. Friends says, he is very often "bonkers", but that does not matter. We like him, and we understand why he is nominated.
I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is sitting behind me. To save being stabbed in the back, I hope that my hon. Friend does not think that I would say anything about him when he was not present. I am rather surprised that we have Members such as my hon. Friend appointed to a Committee to discuss matters connected with privilege. He has never been a member of the Committee of Privileges and has never been within the wheels of the manipulations and manœuvrings that go on within the accepted and usual channels where all the jiggery-pokery takes place. As far as I am aware, he has never been associated with it. If he has, he has been misleading not only me, but many other hon. Members on both sides of the House.
What are his qualifications? Is it because he represents a great Welsh constituency? Is it because he represents a section of the steel industry, and we have to have men of steel on the Committee? Is it because he has from time to time taken an active interest in the question of privilege? In his case, I bow to his great knowledge and experience of our Parliamentary ways and procedures. He has great knowledge and experience of privilege and has taken an active part in the business of the House over the years. Therefore, I do not complain about his being a member of the Committee. I am sure that his appointment will be pleasing to him, as it is to me. The only reason for my raising this is to ascertain how he does it. How is it that he can worm his way into this list of acceptable right hon. and hon. Gentlemen? I think that that is a fair summary of what I was saying while my hon. Friend was out of the Chamber.
I assure my hon. Friend that when I attack him in his absence I do so not because of any personal malice or because

I have a desire to unseat him from this position. It is merely that I want to know whether he was elected to it, appointed to it, or pushed into it. If he went through the usual channels, he might tell me, either in the House or afterwards, how and where these usual channels operate. Which route does one take? How does one wriggle into them? My hon. Friend has discovered where these usual channels are. I have been trying for 21 years to discover them but have not done so. Therefore, I have not discovered how one gets into them. I must refer to my hon. Friend at length because he is the only Member on this list who is present in the Chamber. He must, therefore, carry the cross for the other hon. Members who will be appointed, selected or whatever it is, to this Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) is a greatly respected Member of the House, but he, too, is not here at the moment. He is usually present, taking an active part in our proceedings. He is certainly present when the Finance Bill is being discussed. We have heard my hon. Friend make speeches lasting for three hours. I have not spoken for that length of time, but I could go on for three hours on this subject. My hon. Friend religiously attends our debates and takes an active part in the proceedings of the House. He is the sort of Member whom I would expect to be appointed to this Committee.
The next name on the list is that of the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden). I can understand him being nominated for selection because he, too, is an old respected Member of the House and has done great service for it. He knows our procedure and is obviously an ideal nomination.
I do not know much about my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), but he has a very honourable name. He is the son of a famous father, who is in another place, and the brother of our new Chief Whip. I am sure that this is not why he was nominated. It may be that he has been nominated because he is a great lawyer, but even this is doubtful because there are many other great lawyers on both sides of the House who have not


been nominated to this Committee. Anyway, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be an active Member of the Committee, if and when it is selected.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth—

Mr. Cyril Bence: Vauxhall.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) is a Scottish Member and therefore does not know that Vauxhall and Lambeth are the same. Whatever the Boundary Commission may say, we know our London, and Vauxhall and Lambeth are the same. Vauxhall is part of Lambeth. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) is also an old and respected Member of this House. He has been very active over the years. He is a former Minister of Transport, and he has great knowledge of our rules of procedure, and so on. Then we come to the solitary Liberal Member. Again the usual channels have been working in order to insure proper representation.

Mr. David Steel: indicated dissent.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member shakes his head, but I am sure that the usual channels worked for his hon. Friend. He was not present when my right hon. Friend spoke or he would have heard my right hon. Friend say that the names were collected by the usual channels. He must accept the word of my right hon. Friend that the usual channels operated in the case of his hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). He was probably selected because he is another great lawyer. A surprising number of lawyers are selected to serve on these Committees.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: The House is full of them.

Mr. Lewis: Not at the moment. Many of them are often busy in the courts, but not at this time of night. It is difficult to find lawyers in the actual Chamber.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: There are at least three lawyers in the House now.

Mr. Lewis: Three out of 300 is not a bad percentage.
Anyway, I have been sitting here working out how the names on this list were selected. It could not have been because of length of service, and it could not have been entirely on the question of knowledge of procedure, although my right hon. Friend said that he took cognisance of those points.
I should point out that I have no desire to be considered for or in any way associated with this or any other Select Committee. If I were selected, I would refuse to serve. But I want to know about the usual channels because new Members often approach me and ask, "How does one find out where the usual channels are? Where is the office? Where is the door? How does one get in?" They have not been here for ten minutes, however—and certainly not for three months—before they not only know the usual channels but are running them, while hon. Members who have been here for twenty or thirty years are still trying to find out where they are. In no time at all these new Members become Parliamentary Private Secretaries, Deputy Whips and then Chief Whips, and they are there.
But when new Members ask me where the usual channels are, I cannot tell them. I want to find out, so that I can say to them, "I declare that I do not want anything to do with it, but as you are a new Member who has not found the golden key, I can tell you how to go about it.
I do not know why the Motion was framed in this manner, so that we had no opportunity of tabling Amendments. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will agree that I am in no way connected with the usual channels. I have never been consulted by the usual channels about anything—as would be expected. But I want to know how this list was decided upon by the usual channels. How is it done? Do hon. Members write in? Is it done by ballot?—because we have ballots. I must admit that sometimes, such as when we go through the procedure of balloting for private Members' time, the Whips on both sides come along and try to interfere. Although we have come to a democratic decision on a free vote that we shall have a certain amount of private Members' time, the Whips come along and try to interfere. Do hon. Members write in or do they whisper in someone's ear, "If there is a job going or


a chance of getting on a committee, how can I do so? Do I have to get into the packet of some body or ask someone?"
I should have liked to make some suggestions about hon. Members who would have been useful on this committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) is a past-in aster on the question of privilege. He certainly knows a little about it and would have been an ideal member of the Committee. He could have been considered through the usual channels. Perhaps he was. If not, why not?
Other hon. Members might feel that they would like to have served on this or any other committee. My point is a general one. There is another hon. and learned Gentleman who is a little non persona grata with the Front Bench at the moment, but he is knowledgeable and is another legal gentleman—

Mr. Bence: The hon. and learned M ember for Northampton (Mr. Paget).

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend tells me who he is although I have discussed this with no hon. Member present. I tell a lie: I had two words with the Leader of the House to tell him that I would oppose the Motion, but that is not a discussion.
One of the new hon. Members is also on the Committee. A brilliant Parliamentarian, my witty and lovable hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), has been looking for a job and the Front Bench would have been wise to consider him for some such position as this, as he has a deep and intimate knowledge of our rules and procedure. He could spare the time to serve on the Committee. Perhaps he was given this opportunity: I do not know—[Interruption.] The Leader of the House is having a discussion with a Whip. They need not talk about moving the closure, because it is not my intention to talk the Motion out. The Chief Whip need not have me on the carpet for opposing Government business, because this is not Government business but House of Commons business. Some of my hon. Friends may say that it is terrible of me to oppose Government business. I sometimes do that and I probably will do it in future. However, this is not Government business, so I hope that my hon. Friends who want to be 100 per cent.—

plus loyal to the Government will accept that this is House of Commons business and that, as such, hon. Members should take great interest in it. I will, therefore, not attempt to talk it out.
Having said that, even if this discussion were to continue until 10 o'clock I do not think that the Closure should be moved because, after all, there is no real urgency about this. It could be discussed on another occasion. The House has not had long to discuss it tonight, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not consider that I have spoken for too long. I do not often speak in the House and we do not often discuss these Committees. We tend to appoint them on the nod. That is why many hon. Members want to know how hon. Members are appointed to them, and if my right hon. Friend does not get this through tonight there will be nothing to prevent him from bringing it forward on another occasion, when I may wish to table Amendments. Then I may wish to name certain hon. Members who might like to volunteer to take part in the Committee's deliberations. If hon. Members who are interested would have a word with me, I might, if the matter came up on another occasion, table suitably worded Amendments to get them included on the Committee.
Some hon. Members are on two, three or more Select Committees. They come to those of us who are not on them and tell us how hard they are working. We smile with glee to think of the hard work they are doing, but some of those who are smiling might also like the opportunity to take part in the deliberations of these Committees. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not suggest that an hon. Member need only put his name forward for appointment to these Committees. I know of some hon. Members who have tried for 10, 15, 20 and even 30 years to get on to Select Committees—who have tried through the usual channels and in every other way—but have not been successful. We see, therefore, that hon. Members are not appointed by that means. How are they appointed? My right hon. Friend should give an explanation.
Why, for example, has my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale been chosen for this work? After all, he has not been the most passive, helpful and obliging hon. Member on


occasions. [Interruption.] It is true that he has tried to be helpful, but I do not see why that should qualify him to become a member of this Committee when those of my hon. Friends who did not insist on the House debating Vietnam should not be selected. Is it because my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale insisted that we debate Vietnam that his name was put forward? Or is there some other reason? If that is the reason, some of us could also clamour for a debate on Vietnam—not I, because I do not want to serve on the Committee, but some of my hon. Friends who would like to serve might clamour.
I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will give us some information about how all this is done. I hope that he will not tell me that which is true—[Laughter.] I assure the House that that was an unconscious faux pas, because I would not for a moment suggest that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would tell me anything that was untrue. But I hope that he will not just tell me that which is true in regard to the other side; that the Tories, when in power, used to do the same thing. I know that those usual channels worked in the same way when the party opposite was in power, but I expected that a Labour Government would operate the usual channels rather differently.
Appointment to these Committees should be discussed openly. The Committee of Selection might be drawn in. It might be possible to have a system of nomination, with names put on the Order Paper and hon. Members asked whether they would like to serve. I emphasise that I myself do not want to serve on this or any other Select Committee, but after an hon. Member has served the House for 20, 21, 22, or 30 years it would be nice for him at least on one occasion to be asked by the usual channels whether he would like to serve on one of these Committees or do this or that.
That would be welcome to the Member, and it would not mean too much trouble for the usual channels occasionally to ask long-serving and industrious Members whether they would like to serve. There are many hon. Members who could give good service. They are very knowledgeable and very experienced in all the ways of the House, and would

welcome the opportunity to serve. It would be helpful to the House, too, if they were asked to sit on such Committees—

Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: Am I to take it that my hon. Friend is saying to the House that he would very much welcome an approach through the usual channels to sit on a number of Committees?

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member has completely misunderstood me. I want the usual channels to approach hon. Members who have been here a long time and who would welcome the opportunity to serve; Members who have shown an interest over many years, and who would be ideally suited for the work. If the hon. Member asks whether I want such an invitation, I must repeat that years ago, as a young Member with only two or three years' experience, I tried to get on these Committees. I tried for seven or eight years through the usual channels, but met with no success. As a result, about 10 years ago I decided, first, do not ask; secondly, do not expect, and thirdly, do not want. I do not want or expect to serve, and I would not go on any of these Committees. Nevertheless, there are some hon. Members who would, and I hope that the Leader of the House will consider my suggestion. I can see that I have at last got some hon. Members opposite interested in this subject, and I hope that the House will have the opportunity to put down Amendments to this Motion.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: We have had a rare opportunity this evening of listening to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) making a long and somewhat tortuous speech. I am sure that we are all delighted that at long last he has reached his great goal in public life, membership of the Kitchen Committee or whatever it was.
I support this Motion which seems to provide for a Committee with a pretty well-balanced membership. I shall not go into detail, but there will be Members of all three parties on it and we could say that all the attributes are here we have art and science, and letters joined. These hon. Members have a wide measure of Parliamentary experience.
We also have an element of controversy in the presence of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). It might be said in deference to the hon. Member for West Ham, North that this Committee will contain not a single Tory baronet. What better Committee could We have to look at new aspects of privilege? I am only sorry that in all the years of experience I have had in this House I know of no "usual channel" through which the hon. Member for West Ham, North could possibly pass.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was hoping that as there are still five minutes to ten o'clock the Leader of the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot speak again without leave of the House.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: May I ask the leave of the House for a few minutes reply?

Hon. Members: No.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That a Select Committee be appointed to review the law of Parliamentary Privilege as it affects this House and the procedure by which cases of privilege are raised and dealt with in this House and to report whether any changes in the law of privilege or practice of the House are desirable:

That Mr. Bellenger, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Maurice Edelman, Mr. Michael English, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Quintin Hogg, Mr. Anthony Kershaw, Mr. Harold Lever, Mr. James Ramsden, Mr. S. C. Silkin, Mr. G. R. Strauss, and Mr. Jeremy Thorpe be Members of the Committee:

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; and to report from time to time:

That three be the Quorum.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Mr. Edward Short discharged from the Select Committee; Mr. John Silkin added.—[Mr. McBride.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (GRADUATED CONTRIBUTIONS)

9.57 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Insurance (Assessment of Graduated Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 549), dated 9th May 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th May, be annulled.
We cannot provide for your edification, Mr. Deputy Speaker, between the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and myself, the same kind of delightful pantomime to which we have listened for three-quarters of an hour, but we will do our best.
I shall take a moment for introduction of this matter because of what must occur at ten o'clock. In accordance with our normal practice on this side of the House, we always study very closely any Statutory Instrument emanating from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, as I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary appreciates. We are very much obliged to him for being present tonight to deal with this one, which is a matter of detail, but none the less of important detail.
The first question which I shall be obliged if he can deal with is a small matter of detail. I ask that he should clarify the date on which these Regulations will come into force. This, as he will know, is dealt with by the first paragraph of the Instrument, which, in turn, refers back to Clause 14 of the National Insurance Act, 1966, which, as it were, is the father Act of this Statutory Instrument. It does not seem absolutely clear as a result of Clause 14(4) on what date the Regulations will come into force. One would not expect the Act to specify an individual date and it seems quite clear from the parent Act that it is impossible for different dates to be selected for different parts of the Act and different Statutory Instruments under the Act.
To deal with a small point of detail, could the hon. Gentleman say the date on which his right hon. Friend expects these Regulations to come into effect?
The principal complaint that we raise by way of the Prayer is that this is one more example of amendment piling upon amendment piling upon amendment. This makes life extraordinarily difficult for those who have the task of interpreting these Regulations, or advising upon them. Anybody who has to go through these matters, which are important, starts with the substantial Statutory Instrument No. 921 of 1960, the National Insurance (Assessment of Graduated Contributions) Regulations 1960. That is the parent Statutory Instrument.
He then finds that a first, comparatively modest, amendment was made in 1962. It refers only to holiday payments, but it nevertheless amends the first Statutory Instrument from which this all flows. He must then go to a second, and much more complicated amendment, the National Insurance (Consequential Provisions) Regulations, 1963. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary has read all these Statutory Instruments carefully. The difficulty of the 1963 Statutory Instrument is that it makes a number of detailed amendments not only to that to which I have referred, but to others, so that one has to go through it very carefully to see whether it makes reference to the parent Instrument of 1960.
I have only to pile the books on the Dispatch Box, hiding myself virtually from the Parliamentary Secretary, to illustrate my point. On top of that pile, we are now adding these Regulations.
The Parliamentary Secretary may reply that I have only to look at Schedules 1 and 2 to find set out in neat new column form the figures that I require for the amounts of the payments and contributions. He may well be tempted to reply to me in that way, but, if he does, I shall beg him to cast his eye back through the previous Statutory Instruments, to which I have just referred. He will find that the amendments are far wider than merely the columns of figures, and anybody seeking to advise upon these matters will be wise to go through four different Instruments.
That is the main point of my complaint tonight. In principle, we are not trying to hold up the coming into operation of the new Regulations, but will


the hon. Gentleman, as a result of tonight's discussion, make representations in his Department? I realise only too well that this is largely a technical matter upon which any Minister must largely act upon advice. Will the hon. Gentleman at least say that in future, when new Regulations of this kind, which affect large numbers of people in a very human way, are to come into force, it is desirable, where there are many amendments, to bring them forward together in one new, clean document? That would be of great assistance to those who have to deal with these matters.
It is not too much to ask, and it would be no bad thing if both the Minister and those who advise him appreciated that we on this side keep a close eye on these matters and wish to make that representation to him. I have deliberately taken very little time on the matter. It is not one of life and death urgency, like our last discussion was, but it is a human and important point on which we hope to have a reply.

10.5 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Norman Pentland): The first question raised by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) was about the date on which the Regulations come into operation. This will be the date on which Section 1 of the 1966 Act comes into operation. The link is inevitable, because Section 1 is the provision introducing the new graduated contribution rates and the new ranges of weekly earnings on which contributions are to be charged. Clearly, we must bring into force, at the same time, the contribution tables giving effect to these rates and the ranges of earnings on which contributions are to be charged in the case of those paid otherwise than weekly.
At the time the Regulations were made, the date of the coming into operation of Section 1 had not been finally determined, for obvious reasons which the hon. Gentleman will understand. It was, therefore, not possible to specify the date in the Regulations but it has since been fixed as 5th October, 1966, in a separate Instrument. That Instrument is known as the National Insurance

Act 1966 (Commencement) (No. 2) Order, 1966.
The Government are anxious to bring into force as soon as possible the new earnings related supplement to unemployment and sickness benefits and widows' allowance. They will commence in the first week of October, and we must introduce the new contributions to meet the cost of them at the same time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, also.
The Regulations were made at the beginning of May to give employers as much notice as possible of the contribution changes, and I assure the House that considerable publicity has already been given, and will continue to be given, to the changes which we are making. In particular, all employers with contracted-out employees who will now have to commence paying graduated contributions for them for the first time were sent a memorandum explaining the new provisions at the time of the making of the Regulations. They will not, of course, be unfamiliar with the graduated contributions as the vast majority of employers have employees who are not contracted out of the graduated pension scheme.
The other matter to which the hon. Gentleman attached great importance was his criticism of the Regulations because they amend Regulations already amended. I do not feel that there is much in this point. As he said, the parent Regulations were made in 1960, when graduated contributions were first introduced by the previous Administration. Then they were amended in 1962 in relation to the treatment of holiday pay, but this amendment did not affect the provisions now under consideration.
There have been only two sets of amendments to these provisions—those made in 1963 to give effect to the increased contributions introduced in that year and the present ones occasioned by the further increase in contributions. Therefore, the present amendments are practically self-contained. Except for the minor consequential amendment in Regulation 3(2), they merely substitute a new Regulation about the amounts on which graduated contributions are to be charged in the case of those remunerated otherwise than weekly, and new contribution tables for the existing ones.
This type of straightforward amendment is common form in Regulations concerned with rates of contribution or benefit and should not give rise to much difficulty. In any event, employers will have the assistance of a revised edition of the "Employer's Guide to Graduated National Insurance Contributions" and copies of the new sets of contribution tables will be distributed by the Ministry. Therefore, in general, employers will not have to work things out from the Regulations alone. So the hon. Gentleman can dispel any fears he has in that regard.
For those who need to have recourse to the Regulations, however, the existing Regulations, as amended in 1962 and 1963, are available in convenient form in the consolidated edition of "The Law Relating to Family Allowances and National Insurance", published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office and stocked, I imagine, by most public reference and legal libraries. I again assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be amended to take account of these new Regulations in the very near future.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, these Regulations are highly complicated and very technical. I have taken note of what he has said with regard to the

information which has to be passed on to my Department, but I trust that he is happy with the explanation, brief though it has been, and the assurance I have given him on the specific points he has raised.

Mr. van Straubenzee: With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that I am obliged for the very helpful way in which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with this matter. The hon. Gentleman is always helpful. It was I who pointed out that the first amending Regulations do not affect these Regulations, but this illustrates the point I was seeking to make about the difficulty of this matter. One has to ensure that they do not affect the Regulations, because they are referred to in this Statutory Instrument. Obviously, common prudence dictates that one ensures that they do not affect these Regulations.
However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It was very helpful to have brought out the point about consolidated Regulations being available in a different form. In view of the assurance that the hon. Gentleman has given the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — RESIDENTIAL SPECIAL SCHOOLS (SUPERVISORS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

10.14 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may ask why I am raising the question of the pay and conditions of supervisors employed in children's residential special schools. It is not a constituency problem, although it was first brought to my attention by people from a school in my constituency. I received a letter from these persons who brought the matter to my attention. They say:
We, the undersigned, write for no personal gain, for we are both leaving the Service in September to commence studies at university and Teachers' Training College respectively.
It is perhaps symptomatic of the service that they are leaving. Accompanying the letter was a very good report which those concerned had obviously been to great trouble to compile, and I think you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that normally when one leaves a certain job, perhaps in a state of frustration, one is only too glad to shake the dust from one's feet. It is, therefore, to the credit of those concerned that in this case that is not what they did but that for the good of the service they brought the matter to my attention. Accompanying their letter was a good number of signatures from various special schools in different parts of the country concurring generally in the approach the two sponsors had made.
What are these special schools? There are five basic types—for the delicate, the educationally subnormal, the maladjusted, the physically handicapped and the deaf. I have no doubt, although obviously I have not been able to extend ray inquiries all over the country, that these five basic types cover a wide range.
No one can doubt that the task of fitting the children in the schools to take a normal place in society is a highly skilled job. It needs devoted care, even dedication. It would be fair to say that it needs perhaps a higher degree of skill than at a normal school. The penalties of failure are probably very high. At worst, perhaps the inmate who goes out

into the world might be condemned to a life of crime; at best to unhappiness and, perhaps, failure in life.
It is against that background that the work and responsibility of the supervisors have to be assessed. In 1963 a working party was empanelled, following the head teachers' conference at Swaylands Special School, and produced a report of the"circumstances of recruitment, conditions of service and employment of children's supervisors. So far as I can ascertain, little action was taken on it, although I intend tonight to make fairly wide quotations from the report.
Now I come to the duties of the supervisors. According to an advertisement that one might see for such a post, the job is to look after small groups of pupils after school hours. But that gives no indication of the type of work expected. The supervisors have to enter into full-scale participation in the total development of the children, and I want to quote here from the report.
It is important to realise that children in school do not have the normal home influences which most children enjoy and that such aspects of growing up as toilet training, acquiring acceptable feeding habits, habits of cleanliness in washing, bathing and care of teeth, have to be taught in school. In addition, social behaviour in and out of school is largely a matter of precept, example and training and it is the business of the school to inculcate habits of obedience, politeness and courtesy to adults and children. The bulk of the responsibility falls on the Supervisors who in this very important respect stand in the place of parents.
The report also says:
Due to a variety of reasons, chief among them is probably the increased day provisions for handicapped children, all residential Special Schools are dealing with an increasing number of children who are emotionally disturbed, in many cases seriously. This poses problems of handling, care and discipline which are not easily solved. What has hitherto been the work of the Specialist Schools is now common to us all and requires qualities of resilience and stability in staff which are not easily found….
Wrong handling can increase the strain on a school to breaking point and of course is disastrous to the children themselves.
These supervisors are not passive overseers. The children spend about 25 hours a week in school classes, so 143 hours remain, out of which about 70 hours is the estimate for sleep and about 70 hours out of classrooms, most of that time in the care of the supervisors. When


one considers what is at stake and the responsibilities on the shoulders of the supervisors, it is obviously vitally important to recruit the right type of person. It is disquieting in some respects to read in the report:
Although great care is taken during appointment and in following up confidential reports, most Heads are only too unhappily aware that candidates"—
that is, for the post of supervisor—
do succeed in obtaining employment as Supervisors who are not temperamentally or morally suitable to work with children. A period of training resulting in a recognised qualification would enable a much more accurate assessment of a person's suitability for the work and could go some way to avoiding the appointment to schools of the undesirable characters whose actions have given rise to so much trouble in the past.
That is a rather serious indictment of some of the recruiting which has taken place. Time is getting on and so I will not give some further quotations which I had intended to give, but my investigations have revealed a good many shortages at many of these colleges.
I want to spend a few minutes discussing the duties of the supervisors. These, as the supervisors admit themselves, are rewarding but tough. Assaults are frequent. It is natural that in class children should submit to a certain amount of discipline, but when they come out of class they assert themselves. It may interest the Parliamentary Secretary to hear that I saw two of my friends just before the debate began. They had been on to the school in my constituency, who told them that one of the supervisors had had a ball thrown at him and had had a bone in his ankle broken and his nose broken. That happened today.
To give a rough idea of the pattern of duty; from 7.30 a.m. to 9 a supervisor may be on duty, from 9 to 12 off, from 12 to 2 on, and from 2 to 4 off, and so on, with the last duty 5.15 to 8.30. A routine can be laid down to some extent, but obviously in schools of this sort, as in others, there cannot be a shift system. For example, on seven days out of 21, they are on dormitory duty, which means being on duty from 8 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. with three and a quarters hours off in a day.
Other duties include supervisors' meetings, held in their own time; times "on

call", as it is known, with no set time or days; availability for escort of boys to hospital, the dentist, and collecting boys from home. There are out-of-school activities such as the savings scheme, the care of pets, cycling parties, which is a great responsibility with such children, and group activities such as stamp collecting, art, scouting and so on. In addition there is all the preparation made by the supervisors in their spare time for such occupations.
Another extract from the report is illuminating. It says:
A leaflet issued to intending supervisors by one school for maladjusted boys in our area—
that is in my constituency, states:
No fixed hours of duty are specified. Supervisors are appointed to carry out duties as determined by the headmaster, the hours being as required by the nature of employment. Entitlement is to one clear day off each week, only in exceptional circumstances should rest days not to be taken … and so on.
A reasonable estimate of the hours put in by a supervisor is something over 50 hours per week with the additional "on call" days.
That is some idea of the responsibilities of children's supervisors and the special qualities and skills needed by them. I would like to have a short look at pay and conditions and the status of supervisors. First of all, pay. I obviously cannot go into detail in view of the time that I have left, but I want to show that it is grossly inadequate for the responsibilities of the people concerned. This is the salary scale at the schools with which I am concerned. It begins at £525 a year, rising to £675 a year, rising by August, 1966, to £725 a year. An annual deduction of £133 is made for board and residence. The report says:
For our part we receive monthly cheques in the region of £44. After all deductions, superannuation, board and residence, about £24 remains.
The report of the panel formed had the net effect of raising the starting pay by £10 per annum in 1964, from £515 to £525. That puts the seamen's demands or any other demands in some sort of perspective.
It is interesting to note that when this happened the Middlesex County Council raised the board and residence charge by £9 so that the supervisor was left with £1 net rise in the year. There is a good deal


more, but I have not time to give it. The rates vary"between authorities, and this is one of the difficulties; everyone seems to compete with everyone else in offering different salary scales. I inquired from Surrey County Council and it had no supervisors at all. They pay their teachers an additional £300 a year for so many extra hours' work a week. It seems to work very well, and it may be a thing which ought to be looked into.
That, briefly, deals with their pay. Now may I quote some remarks from the report about their living conditions. It says:
We feel that insufficient attention has been given in the past to the living conditions and amenities which are offered to our Supervisors. We have to remember that the life we ask them to lead is in many occasions isolated and unnatural. They are required to work at times when the rest of the world is free, at evenings and especially weekends.
There is a good deal more to the same effect.
If I may, I will now give a few more intimate details about the actual living accommodation in the schools. The bed-sitters for the residential staff, including the supervisors, are in the main school buildings and naturally suffer from any disturbances. These may seem small things, but they are very important, as anyone who has studied these sorts of things knows.
It was found, for example, that one room was very close to the kitchens, and the noise from domestic appliances such as potato peelers and washing machines caused disturbance. Another room was adjacent to the haircutting and medical room, with constant traffic in and out. Another room was between two dormitories, and the supervisor could not put on his record player or entertain guests because he disturbed the dormitories. Another had a bed-sitter above the staff room and, as a result, was kept awake.
Those working in the schools realise that they must accept noise and inconvenience, but, due to the fact that many of the buildings housing these children were not designed for schools, the living accommodation cannot be away from the main buildings, and that is a most vital need so as to give the staff opportunities for rest and relaxation. If it was provided, it would prove to be one of the most decisive steps towards attracting residential

staff. In addition, of course, food is also important.
Then I come to status, and again I quote from the report:
For too long Supervisors have hovered uneasily in status between the domestic and professional staff. Every effort should be made to integrate supervisory staff into the total life of the school. It is important to realise that they should feel valued and that all staff, teaching as well as non-teaching, should understand that the work of Children's Supervisors is skilled, exacting, professional work.
Pay and conditions are important to status, of course. But, in addition, the 1963 report recommended that a training centre be established and a recognised qualification granted. I believe that that would be more important than anything else in improving the status of these men.
Finally, I summarise the five points which I ask the Minister to consider. Firstly, on salaries, there should be a national scale for children's supervisors and allied workers. There must be an increase in the present salaries to bring them in line with the responsibilities of the work. Secondly, there should be a fixed upper limit on the number of hours worked, because there is none at present, and all time worked after that should be paid overtime. I believe that the police have a scheme to meet this, and that might be looked at. Thirdly, on living conditions, there should be a building programme to give a basic standard of accommodation, and, most important, living quarters should be away from the main school building. Fourthly, there should be a training centre with recognised qualifications for supervisors being trained. Fifthly, there should be a standard advertisement setting out the conditions of work, and the conditions of service should be available at interviews.
I hope that the Minister will consider these points very seriously. If he cannot promise acceptance now, I hope that he will at least promise to inquire into the situation, with a view to correcting what I believe to be a very great evil today.

10.35 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): In the short time available to me I shall deal as fully as I can with the points raised by the hon. and gallant


Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot). May I first say that this is an opportune moment for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to be raising this question. In fact, it is rather more opportune than even the hon. and gallant Gentleman may believe, because tomorrow my right hon. Friend's own advisory committee on handicapped children will meet to start some new deliberations into this whole problem, in addition to other research and thought with which I shall deal shortly.
At the moment there is probably more thinking going on about the whole of this problem than there has been for some years past. I appreciate what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, and the report on which he drew for his comments. I had not had the opportunity of reading or knowing about this report until the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned it, but I assure him that I shall study it to see whether there are any lessons which my Department or I ought to draw from it.
It goes without saying that we all wish to endorse what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said about the dedication of these people. I think that was the word the hon. and gallant Gentleman used, and I do not disagree with him. I do not think that it is too strong a word to use about the people to whom the whole of our society should be grateful, these folk who give so much of their lives to dealing with the categories of children about whom we are talking.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted five categories of children. I had listed seven categories, in the hope of giving them to the House, and perhaps I might therefore add two to those listed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. These are the blind and partially sighted children, and epileptic children, both very important and large groups of children. It is impossible to be too enthusiastic about the work of those who are responsible for the education of these children.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman was concerned about the pay and conditions of these supervisors. There is no doubt about the esteem in which we hold them, but I think that I ought to say, as I attempted to say on an earlier occasion when the hon. and gallant Gentleman

questioned me about these matters, that it has always been the practice that the House of Commons and the Government cannot accept direct responsibility for salary negotiations in the case of these special residential schools. They are covered by the National Joint Negotiating Committee for Local Authority Services, and I think that there is a special sub-committee which deals with the special residential schools category as well as other categories affecting the Home Department and other local authority residential homes.
It is important for us to remember that there are 336 residential schools, with a total of 21,000 residential places for children who are unfortunate enough to be in these categories. I am aware that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has drawn upon his experience in his constituency where there are one or two schools, but the fact is that there are 336 of these schools with 21,000 residential places in them. In order to get the picture into perspective, I should point out that there are another 50,000 handicapped children who receive their education in day schools, and not in boarding schools. It is clear that conditions vary considerably among these 336 schools.
Clearly, in some of the schools conditions are likely to be first-class. I would like to see them first-class in all. I agree that the learned Member may be aware of some schools where conditions are not up to the standards that we would like to see. I can only tell him that this is a local authority matter, but that I shall be delighted, if he will let me have details of the schools to which he referred, to see that they are personally investigated by my Department. It is the practice that H.M. Inspectorate, who constantly keep in touch with the schools, as far as possible, take up with them points which they feel to be important. The schools themselves are very well aware of the constant need for new thinking in this regard.
On the question of a further inquiry, which the hon. Member raised earlier by way of a Question, I must tell him again that such an inquiry is already well under way, being chaired by Professor Lady Williams, who is well known in this field, on behalf of a committee of the National Council of Social Service. I am advised that the committee, which


has gone into all the questions that the hon. Member has raised, has been extremely thorough in its investigations and has taken a great deal of evidence, and I know that he will be encouraged to know that its report is now in draft form. Again, I will see that all he has said this evening is conveyed to Professor Lady Williams and her colleagues, in order that they can have the advantage of the hon. Members comments before finalising their report.
I cannot stress enough the importance that the Government have always placed on the question of the independent negotiation of salaries. This is not something in which Ministers can directly intervene. It is sufficient for me to say that I am quite clear that the case that he has been putting forward this evening will be considered by the National Joint Negotiating Committee, and I hope that it will have realistic and sympathetic regard to his remarks. I am certain—having had a little experience of the way in which these joint negotiating committees work, and the importance of all employees belonging to their appropriate organisation so that they can have their point of view adequately presented in these negotiations and discussions—that the people whose job it is to put forward a case on behalf of teachers and supervisors will be quoting and praying in

aid the remarks of the hon. Member when they next negotiate their case.
I finish by repeating the five conditions to which the hon. Member referred. Salaries and hours of work are questions for the National Joint Negotiating Committee, and I have no doubt that the Committee will have regard to what the hon. Member has said. Living conditions are matters for each local authority. We are aware of the constant need to keep them up to date and the hon. Member would expect that in my Department there is tremendous sympathy for the whole field of education of the handicapped. In the Department of Education they often get more consideration than other branches, and I am delighted that that is so.
Training centres and qualifications, and standard advertisements are matters that I had not previously thought about, but I will give the hon. Member an undertaking that I will think about them—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.